Taylor v. Greyhound Bus Lines

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW FRANKLIN TAYLOR, JR., ) Case No.: 25-CV-2314-BEN-DDL ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER 13 v. ) ) 14 GREYHOUND BUS LINES, ) 15 Defendant. ) 16 On August 9, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Matthew Taylor, Jr. filed the instant action 17 against Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. and filed a concurrent motion to proceed in 18 forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 2). For the reasons set forth below, the Court 19 DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and DENIES the 20 motion to proceed IFP as moot. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Greyhound was involved in or enabled illegal 23 murder attempts, financial coercion, and other unlawful acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 24 1113. (Doc. 1 at 5). Plaintiff seeks $2.1 billion in damages. Id. at 4. 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 A. Screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 27 A complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject 28 to a mandatory and sua sponte review by the Court. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or 2 malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 3 relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To pass 4 screening, all complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing 5 that the pleader is entitled to relied.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 6 Plaintiff cannot proceed with his claim because he fails to state a claim. A 7 complaint filed by any person proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject 8 to mandatory sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court. “[T]he court shall dismiss” a 9 case filed IFP “at any time if the court determines that…the action…(i) is frivolous or 10 malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks 11 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief” 28 U.S.C § 12 1915(e)(2). “The purpose of [screening] is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or 13 malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 14 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)). 15 “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 16 which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 17 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the 18 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint 19 fails to state a claim for relief under Rule 8 if the factual assertions in it, taken as true, are 20 insufficient for the reviewing court plausibly “to draw the reasonable inference that the 21 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 22 (2009). When a judge assesses plausibility, he must draw on “judicial experience and 23 common sense.” Id. at 664. 24 Here, Plaintiff alleges President Donald Trump intentionally caused his destitute 25 condition. His complaint references traveling from Indianapolis to San Diego and being 26 unable to attend court due to murder threats. Plaintiff states one cause of action, 18 27 28 | U.S.C. § 1113!, which is wholly inapplicable. Section 1113 is a criminal statute for 2 murder or manslaughter attempts that occur “within the special maritime and territorial 3 jurisdiction of the United States.” Plaintiff fails to state a claim as the criminal statutes 4 cites are not applicable. 5 B. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 6 Because Plaintiff does not provide for a viable claim in his complaint, the Court 7 || DENIES his motion to proceed (“IFP”’) as moot. 8 III. CONCLUSION ? Accordingly, Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to 10 || state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).2 Plaintiff's 11 || motion to proceed IFP is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to 12 || close this case. 13 □ 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. lying, 13 || DATED: September 15, 2025 16 HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ 7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 95 ||! “Attempt to commit murder or manslaughter. [W]however, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, attempts to commit murder or manslaughter, shall, for an attempt to 26 commit murder be imprisoned not more than twenty years or fined under this title, or both, and for an emt to commit manslaughter be imprisoned not more than seven years or fined under this title, or 28 business entity cannot be charged with attempted murder. Moreover, the Plaintiff lacks standing to file a criminal charge. 3.