Roberts v. Sanchez

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 23, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-01336
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TINA LOUISE ROBERTS, Case No.: 3:22-cv-01336-RBM-JLB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 12 v. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 13

14 RAUL SANCHEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On September 6, 2022, Plaintiff Tina Louise Roberts (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint 19 (Doc. 1), accompanied by a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (Doc. 20 2). On October 6, 2022, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed 21 IFP and dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 3.) The Court granted 22 Plaintiff fourth-five (45) days leave from the date of its October 6, 2022 order in which to 23 file an amended complaint which cures all deficiencies noted. (Id. at 4.) On October 21, 24 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff filed an additional 25 complaint on October 24, 2022, and another on December 2, 2022. (Docs. 5, 6.) In light 26 of Plaintiff’s pro se status and the fact that Plaintiff has filed three complaints in succession, 27 the Court will liberally construe the filings as one amended complaint and two supplements 28 (collectively, “First Amended Complaint”). See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police 1 Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (when an action is filed by a pro se litigant, “the 2 court must construe the pleadings liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any 3 doubt”); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 4 II. LEGAL STANDARD 5 Before service on defendants, all in forma pauperis complaints must be screened to 6 ensure that they are not frivolous or malicious, that they state a claim on which relief may 7 be granted, and that they do not seek monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 8 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“section 9 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis 10 complaint that fails to state a claim”); see also Chavez v. Robinson, 817 F.3d 1162, 1167– 11 68 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that section 1915(e)(2)(B) “mandates dismissal—even if 12 dismissal comes before the defendants are served”). Congress enacted this safeguard 13 because “a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a 14 paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or 15 repetitive lawsuits.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. 16 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). 17 A complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 18 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 19 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially 20 plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 21 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 22 U.S. at 678. Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 23 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 24 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief 25 [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 26 experience and common sense.” Id. 27 Complaints must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires 28 that each pleading include a “short and plain statement of the claim,” FED. R. CIV. P. 1 8(a)(2), and that each allegation “be simple, concise, and direct.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(d)(1); 2 see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677–78. In addition to the grounds for sua sponte dismissal set out 3 in § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court may also dismiss a complaint for failure to comply 4 with Rule 8 if it fails to provide the defendant fair notice of the wrongs allegedly 5 committed. See Cafasso, United States ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 6 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing cases upholding Rule 8 dismissals where pleadings were 7 “verbose,” “confusing,” “distracting, ambiguous, and unintelligible,” “highly repetitious,” 8 and comprised of “incomprehensible rambling”). 9 III. DISCUSSION 10 In reviewing the First Amended Complaint, the Court has attempted to make sense 11 of the allegations, but finds the pleading to be indecipherable, largely consisting of 12 incoherent phrases or words. (See Docs. 4, 5, 6.) The lack of punctuation and complete 13 sentences creates confusion, and the allegations appear frivolous. (See id.); see also 14 Anderson v. Sy, 486 Fed. Appx. 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The district court properly dismissed 15 [the lawsuit] as frivolous because the complaint contains indecipherable facts and 16 unsupported legal assertions”); see also Adams v. FBI S.F. Field Off. Supervisor & Agents, 17 No. 19-CV-02977-YGR (PR), 2019 WL 5626261, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2019) (“A 18 claim that is totally incomprehensible may be dismissed as frivolous as it is without an 19 arguable basis in law”). 20 Among various other allegations, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint states: “THE 21 PITURE [sic] THEY SURROUNDED MY UNIT IM ON LOWER FLOOR 3 AT MY 4 22 AT MY WINDOW SO HE TAKE PICTURE AND BURN AND BURN WHILE IN MY 23 UNIT 155 AT STUDIO MANAGER WAS PRSENT [sic] I DID WHAT HE ASK THEN 24 HE LEFT . . .” and “I WENT TO PIZZA PLACE AND GOT BACK TO MY SHE SAT 25 NEXT DOOR AND WATCH ME EAT THE PIZZA YOU DUMB BITCH WHY DO 26 YOU BUY THERE AND WHEN SECOND BITE SHE GOT GUN AND SHOT MY BAD 27 GIRL STUDIO BITCH . . . .” (Doc. 4 at 1, 3.) Plaintiff makes no reference to specific 28 defendants in connection with any cause of action and fails to state a plausible claim for 1 relief. (See Docs. 4, 5, 6.) Moreover, the First Amended Complaint fails to provide fair 2 ||notice of the wrongs allegedly committed. See Cafasso, United States ex rel., 637 F.3d at 3 1059. “The Court notes that “a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the 4 || facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there 5 ||are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33. 6 ||Clearly baseless factual allegations include those “that are ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ and 7 || ‘delusional.’” Jd. (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 327, 328). 8 Even giving Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, the Court is unable to determine the 9 || specific factual allegations of Plaintiff's complaint and, as such, is unable to decipher the 10 || misconduct alleged. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56, 570. The 11 |}Court concludes that Plaintiffs allegations are factually frivolous and do not state a 12 || plausible claim. Because the Complaint is frivolous, the Court does not grant Plaintiff 13 |/leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (“When a 14 may be classified as frivolous or malicious, there is, by definition, no merit to the 15 || underlying action and so no reason to grant leave to amend”). Accordingly, □□□□□□□□□□□ 16 |}complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 17 || granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)Gy); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 18 1121 (9th Cir. 2012). 19 Tit. CONCLUSION 20 Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's 21 ||First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted 22 || WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: March 23, 2023 25