7 THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
8 PATRICK IRIARTE, CIVIL CASE NO. 25-00018 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. DECISION AND ORDER 11 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S ROSEMARY REDILA, APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 12 DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT Defendants. PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AND 13 DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 14
15 16 This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Patrick Iriarte’s Complaint under 28 17 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, and his Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying 18 Fees or Costs (“Application to Waive Fees”). ECF Nos. 1 & 2. The court has reviewed the 19 relevant filings and finds this matter suitable for submission without oral argument. 20 For the reasons stated herein, the court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application to Waive 21 Fees and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend. 22 I. Application to Waive Fees 23 Plaintiff filed his Application to Waive Fees on April 21, 2025. ECF No. 2. A court may 24 authorize an individual to commence a civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee 1 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) if that person “submits an affidavit [stating] . . . that the person is 2 unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 3 In the Application to Waive Fees, Plaintiff averred that he has zero sources of income. 4 ECF No. 2. Moreover, he states that he only has $5.00 in a checking or savings account. Id.
5 Based on the declarations of Plaintiff, the court finds that Plaintiff cannot pay the filing fee and 6 grants his Application to Waive Fees. Accordingly, the court must screen Plaintiff’s Complaint 7 before allowing the case to proceed. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). 8 II. Background 9 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges “Defendant advised and assisted in Crime against plaintiff.” 10 ECF No. 1. Moreover, “Defendant knew that the crime would cause harm and suffering to 11 plaintiff [and] the suffering of the plaintiff was directly caused by the illegal actions of 12 defendant.” Id. Plaintiff then requested $1,000,000.00 in compensatory damages and interests 13 and costs. Id. He contends that the “court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1332” to hear this claim. Id. Plaintiff is seeking $1 million in compensatory damages, plus
15 interests and costs. Id. 16 III. Screening the Complaint 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court is required to review a complaint and dismiss 18 it if the action is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 19 granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 20 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27. A complaint “is frivolous where it 21 lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 22 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, 23 along with “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” FED. R. CIV. P.
24 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 1 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006). The court must accept all allegations of material fact as 2 true and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Barren v. 3 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Although a plaintiff is not required to provide 4 detailed allegations, legal conclusions are insufficient. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
5 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 6 statements, do not suffice.”). A court can dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint without leave to 7 amend if the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured. See Flowers v. First Hawaiian Bank, 8 295 F.3d 966, 976 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., 9 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)). 10 When a plaintiff is pro se, the court must liberally construe the allegations in a complaint. 11 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally 12 construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent 13 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”) (internal quotation marks and citation 14 omitted); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 n.7 (9th Cir. 2010). Nonetheless, pro se litigants
15 “should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record,” Jacobsen v. Filler, 16 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986); rather, they must follow the same rules of procedure that 17 govern other litigants. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). In particular, “a liberal 18 interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were 19 not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) 20 (internal quotation marks omitted). 21 IV. Analysis 22 Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to sufficiently state the basis of this court’s jurisdiction or a 23 claim upon which relief can be granted.
24 A. Jurisdiction 1 Plaintiff alleges jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 2 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity). Federal question jurisdiction grants the court the ability to hear “all 3 civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 4 1331. Plaintiff makes the conclusory claim that the court can act under federal question
5 jurisdiction but does not mention which of his rights under the Constitution, federal law, or treaty 6 has been violated. See ECF No. 1. 7 Diversity jurisdiction grants the court the ability to hear “all civil actions where the 8 matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and the parties have “complete 9 diversity.” Lincoln Prop. Co. v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
7 THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
8 PATRICK IRIARTE, CIVIL CASE NO. 25-00018 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. DECISION AND ORDER 11 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S ROSEMARY REDILA, APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 12 DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT Defendants. PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AND 13 DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 14
15 16 This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Patrick Iriarte’s Complaint under 28 17 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, and his Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying 18 Fees or Costs (“Application to Waive Fees”). ECF Nos. 1 & 2. The court has reviewed the 19 relevant filings and finds this matter suitable for submission without oral argument. 20 For the reasons stated herein, the court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application to Waive 21 Fees and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend. 22 I. Application to Waive Fees 23 Plaintiff filed his Application to Waive Fees on April 21, 2025. ECF No. 2. A court may 24 authorize an individual to commence a civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee 1 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) if that person “submits an affidavit [stating] . . . that the person is 2 unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 3 In the Application to Waive Fees, Plaintiff averred that he has zero sources of income. 4 ECF No. 2. Moreover, he states that he only has $5.00 in a checking or savings account. Id.
5 Based on the declarations of Plaintiff, the court finds that Plaintiff cannot pay the filing fee and 6 grants his Application to Waive Fees. Accordingly, the court must screen Plaintiff’s Complaint 7 before allowing the case to proceed. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). 8 II. Background 9 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges “Defendant advised and assisted in Crime against plaintiff.” 10 ECF No. 1. Moreover, “Defendant knew that the crime would cause harm and suffering to 11 plaintiff [and] the suffering of the plaintiff was directly caused by the illegal actions of 12 defendant.” Id. Plaintiff then requested $1,000,000.00 in compensatory damages and interests 13 and costs. Id. He contends that the “court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1332” to hear this claim. Id. Plaintiff is seeking $1 million in compensatory damages, plus
15 interests and costs. Id. 16 III. Screening the Complaint 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court is required to review a complaint and dismiss 18 it if the action is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 19 granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 20 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27. A complaint “is frivolous where it 21 lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 22 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, 23 along with “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” FED. R. CIV. P.
24 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 1 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006). The court must accept all allegations of material fact as 2 true and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Barren v. 3 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Although a plaintiff is not required to provide 4 detailed allegations, legal conclusions are insufficient. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
5 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 6 statements, do not suffice.”). A court can dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint without leave to 7 amend if the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured. See Flowers v. First Hawaiian Bank, 8 295 F.3d 966, 976 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., 9 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)). 10 When a plaintiff is pro se, the court must liberally construe the allegations in a complaint. 11 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally 12 construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent 13 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”) (internal quotation marks and citation 14 omitted); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 n.7 (9th Cir. 2010). Nonetheless, pro se litigants
15 “should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record,” Jacobsen v. Filler, 16 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986); rather, they must follow the same rules of procedure that 17 govern other litigants. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). In particular, “a liberal 18 interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were 19 not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) 20 (internal quotation marks omitted). 21 IV. Analysis 22 Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to sufficiently state the basis of this court’s jurisdiction or a 23 claim upon which relief can be granted.
24 A. Jurisdiction 1 Plaintiff alleges jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 2 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity). Federal question jurisdiction grants the court the ability to hear “all 3 civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 4 1331. Plaintiff makes the conclusory claim that the court can act under federal question
5 jurisdiction but does not mention which of his rights under the Constitution, federal law, or treaty 6 has been violated. See ECF No. 1. 7 Diversity jurisdiction grants the court the ability to hear “all civil actions where the 8 matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and the parties have “complete 9 diversity.” Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005); Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 10 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806). Plaintiff makes the conclusory claim that the court can act under 11 diversity jurisdiction but does not allege how the parties are diverse. See ECF No. 1. 12 In sum, Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that this court has 13 jurisdiction over his claims. 14 B. Failure to State a Claim
15 Plaintiff has not alleged a basis in either law or fact for his Complaint to proceed. 16 Currently, his complaint alleges “Defendant advised and assisted in Crime against plaintiff” and 17 “Defendant knew that the crime would cause harm and suffering to plaintiff.” ECF No. 1. This 18 allegation does not contain any material facts about what Defendant did to cause harm or what 19 injury Plaintiff suffered. These are conclusory statements without factual allegations. Moreover, 20 Plaintiff does not allege what legal basis he has for these claims. 21 C. Leave to Amend 22 If a complaint fails to state a plausible claim, “a district court should grant leave to amend 23 even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could
24 not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th 1 Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 484, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)). 2 Here, Plaintiff failed to meet the basic pleading requirement of a Complaint. As such, the 3 court will allow Plaintiff to amend his Complaint, ensuring that the amended Complaint contains 4 “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).
5 Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint. If Plaintiff 6 fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action may be dismissed 7 with prejudice and without further notice. 8 V. CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Applicant’s Application to Waive Fees 10 and DISMISSES the Complaint with leave to amend. 11 SO ORDERED. 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23