Roman v. U.S. District Court Southern District of California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff Jason Elliott Roman III's First Amended Complaint, which alleged that the U.S. District Court Clerk's Office was responsible for his 1974 abduction and wrongful conviction. The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, denied leave to amend, and certified that an in forma pauperis appeal would be frivolous.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of First Amended Complaint“The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for filing a frivolous complaint and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The plaintiff failed to allege facts connecting the named defendant (the Clerk's Office) to the alleged misconduct (abduction and wrongful conviction), which fails the plausibility standard established in Ashcroft v. Iqbal. Additionally, the claim is legally frivolous because a Clerk's Office is not a suable entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has no role in criminal convictions or interstate abductions. The dismissal is supported by the record recited in the order. |
Denial of Leave to Amend“the Court declines to grant leave to amend.” | agree with court Under Ninth Circuit precedent, leave to amend is not required when a complaint is dismissed as frivolous. The court cited Lopez v. Smith for this proposition. Since the underlying claims are legally meritless (suing a non-entity for criminal acts), amendment would be futile. |
Certification that IFP Appeal is Frivolous“The Court CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would be frivolous and, therefore, would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Gardner v. Pogue. Given the frivolous nature of the underlying complaint (suing a Clerk's Office for criminal liability), an appeal would lack an arguable basis in law or fact, justifying the certification. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory basis for screening IFP complaints and applies the appropriate pleading standards (Iqbal/Twombly) and frivolousness standard (Neitzke). It correctly notes the failure to connect the defendant to the alleged harm. The denial of leave to amend and the certification of frivolous appeal follow logically from the dismissal of a legally meritless claim against a non-suable entity. The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON ELLIOTT ROMAN, III, Case No.: 20-CV-00760 JLS (WVG)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 13 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, et. al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Jason Elliott Roman III’s First Amended 18 Complaint (“FAC,” ECF No. 7). The Court previously granted Plaintiff In Forma Pauperis 19 (“IFP”) status and, after conducting the required screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), 20 dismissed his original complaint. (ECF No. 5.) On July 8, 2020, Plaintiff, filed his FAC 21 and a Motion to Produce Documents (ECF No. 8). For the reasons set forth below, the 22 Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s FAC. 23 The Court must screen every civil action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 24 and dismiss any case it finds “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief 25 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.” 26 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 27 (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoner.”); Lopez v. 28 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 1 “not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 2 that fails to state a claim”). 3 Plaintiff’s FAC is nearly identical to his original complaint, which the Court found 4 to be frivolous and failed to state a claim. See ECF No. 5. In his FAC, Plaintiff contends 5 that in 1974 he was illegally brought to California from Georgia and wrongfully convicted 6 of Murder. See generally FAC. Plaintiff brings claims against the United States District 7 Court for the Southern District of California Clerk’s Office under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, 8 and 1986. Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiff requests the Court provide him transcripts from a 1974 hearing 9 that Plaintiff contends will establish he was “unlawfully abducted and taken from the State 10 of Georgia,” and also show he was wrongfully convicted. Id. ¶¶ 2, 8–9, 17. 11 When it dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint, the Court noted Plaintiff failed “to 12 connect [his] alleged wrongful conviction with any action of the Defendants,” and focused 13 instead on “discussing his grievances with other parties.” ECF No. 5 at 3. Plaintiff once 14 again fails to connect his grievances to what, if any, role the Clerk’s office had in his 15 alleged abduction and wrongful conviction, or that the Clerk’s office is able to, yet refused 16 to give Plaintiff the requested transcript. Plaintiff therefore “lacks an arguable basis” for 17 bringing his claims. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[A] complaint . 18 . . is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”). And, further, 19 Plaintiff’s FAC does not provide sufficient factual allegations to “allow[] the court to draw 20 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” See 21 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 22 544, 555 (2007)). For these reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff’s FAC is frivolous and fails 23 to state a plausible claim. 24 Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s FAC pursuant to 28 25 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for filing a frivolous complaint and for failing to state a claim upon 26 which relief can be granted. Because the Court finds Plaintiff’s FAC is frivolous, and 27 because the Court previously gave Plaintiff an opportunity to correct the noted deficiencies, 28 the Court declines to grant leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8 1 Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that if a claim is classified as frivolous, “there is by 2 || definition no merit to the underlying action and so no reason to grant leave to amend.”). 3 ||The Court CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would be frivolous and, 4 ||therefore, would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See 5 || Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) (appellant is permitted to proceed 6 || IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be frivolous). The Clerk of Court SHALL CLOSE 7 || the file. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: August 18, 2020 . tt f Le 10 on. Janis L. Sammartino ll United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28