Stephens v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 2, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-06081
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NICHOLAS STEPHENS, Case No. 3:23-cv-06081-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS 9 v. AND PLAINTIFF’S RELATED MOTIONS 10 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 6, 14, 15, 16 Defendant. 11

12 13 Nicholas Stephens, who is representing himself, filed this personal injury action in the 14 Alameda County Superior Court. Defendant, United Parcel Service, removed the action based on 15 diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a 16 claim is now pending before the Court. (Dkt. No. 6.1) After Defendant’s motion was fully 17 briefed, Plaintiff filed motions for ADA accommodations and an evidentiary hearing related to any 18 hearing on the motion to dismiss, as well as a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (Dkt. 19 Nos. 14, 15, 16.) After carefully considering the parties’ briefs and the relevant legal authority, 20 the Court concludes oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS the motion 21 to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED for the reasons explained below. 22 DISCUSSION 23 A. Motion to Dismiss 24 A complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 25 face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). To avoid dismissal, a complaint 26 must contain more than “naked assertion[s],” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation 27 1 of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555–57. “A claim has facial 2 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 3 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 4 678 (2009). Further, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 5 that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). When a plaintiff files a complaint 6 without representation by a lawyer, the Court must “construe the pleadings liberally ... to afford 7 the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) 8 (cleaned up). “A district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend 9 unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 10 amendment.” Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). 11 Plaintiff’s complaint, which was filed on the state court form for a complaint based on 12 personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, does not include sufficient information to 13 determine the nature of his claim(s). (Dkt. No. 1-2.) Plaintiff checked the boxes for “gross 14 negligence, intentional tort, premises liability, and other “professional misconduct.” (Id. at 4.) 15 Under the “Cause of Action—Premise Liability” heading, Plaintiff alleges “plaintiff was injured 16 on the following premises [unreadable] the following fashion mail sorting facility, premediated 17 hate crime physical assault W/GBI (jon doe (1) layed [sic] and waited) witnessed by facility 18 survellance [sic] system, see attached NLRB charge and Affidavit, Awaiting Oakland police 19 report.” (Id. at 5.) 20 Although the federal rules require brevity in pleading, a complaint nevertheless must be 21 sufficient to give the defendants “fair notice of the claim and the ‘grounds upon which it rests.” 22 See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (cleaned up). “A complaint that fails to state the 23 specific acts of the defendant that violated the plaintiff’s rights fails to meet the notice 24 requirements of Rule 8(a).” Medina Chiprez v. Becerra, No. 20-CV-00307-YGR (PR), 2020 WL 25 4284825, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2020). Plaintiff’s allegations fail to satisfy this standard. The 26 basis for Plaintiff’s personal injury and/or negligence claim(s) is unclear from the Complaint. 27 However, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss and later filed declaration 1 Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim 2 and grants Plaintiff leave to amend to elaborate the basis for his legal claim(s) and allege facts in 3 support of those claim(s). Because the nature of Plaintiff’s legal claims is unclear at this time, the 4 Court declines to consider Defendant’s arguments that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the 5 workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine and are preempted by Section 301 of the Labor 6 Management Relations Act. 7 B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 8 “[T]he appointment of counsel in a civil case is ... a privilege and not a right.” Gardner v. 9 Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965); see also Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 10 2009) (stating that “[g]enerally a person has no right to counsel in civil actions”). The Court “may 11 under exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation omitted). To determine whether “exceptional 13 circumstances” are present, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well 14 as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 15 issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 16 Having considered these factors, the Court concludes Plaintiff has not yet demonstrated a 17 likelihood of success or that the issues in this case are sufficiently complex, so the interests of 18 justice do not warrant appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. Plaintiff’s motion for 19 appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 15.) 20 C. Plaintiff’s Other Pending Motions 21 Plaintiff’s motion for ADA accommodations and an evidentiary hearing relate to the 22 hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Dkt. Nos. 14, 16.) Because the Court grants that 23 motion with leave to amend, Plaintiff’s motions are denied as moot without prejudice to renewal 24 in the context of any future motion to dismiss. 25 CONCLUSION 26 For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted with leave to 27 amend. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for 1 Any amended complaint is due February 29, 2024. Plaintiff is reminded he may seek 2 || assistance from the Legal Help Center, a free service of the Volunteer Legal Services 3 Program, by calling 415-782-8982 or emailing fedpro@sfbar.org. 4 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 6, 14, 15, and 16. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: February 2, 2024 8 9 ne ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 10 United States District Judge 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28