Roberts v. Studio 15 Management
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's amended complaint and motion for an ex parte hearing filed under the in forma pauperis statute. The court sua sponte dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim and denied the motion for an ex parte hearing as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Sua sponte dismissal of the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim“Accordingly, the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and the Court, sua sponte, dismisses it pursuant to § 1915(e)(2).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the mandatory screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to a non-prisoner IFP plaintiff, citing *Lopez v. Smith* and *Calhoun v. Stahl*. The court applied the *Twombly* plausibility standard and Rule 8(a)(2) notice pleading requirements. The dismissal is supported by the court's finding that the allegations were incoherent and failed to provide fair notice of the claims. The dismissal is without prejudice, which is appropriate given the prior dismissal with leave to amend and the nature of the deficiency (failure to state a claim rather than frivolousness). |
Denial of Motion for Ex Parte Hearing“The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s request for an ex parte hearing as moot.” | agree with court The court denied the motion as moot following the dismissal of the underlying complaint. While the order does not explicitly state the legal basis for the mootness (e.g., lack of a pending claim to be heard), denying a motion for a hearing on a claim that has just been dismissed is a standard and logical procedural step. The court did not need to reach the merits of the ex parte request because the subject matter of the hearing (the claims in the complaint) no longer existed in the case. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for sua sponte review under § 1915(e)(2), applies the correct standard of review (Twombly plausibility and Rule 8 notice), and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority confirming the statute's applicability to non-prisoners. The reasoning for dismissal is concise but sufficient, noting the incoherence and lack of legally relevant facts. The denial of the ex parte motion as moot is a logical consequence of the dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TINA LOUISE ROBERTS, an individual, Case No.: 22-cv-967-GPC(AGH)
11 Plaintiff, ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 12 v. PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO 13 STUDIO 15 MANGENT, RUTH STATE A CLAIM AND DENYING RIVERIA, JOLINDA QUILTIA, 14 MOTION FOR EX PARTE Defendants. HEARING 15 [Dkt. No. 14.] 16 17 Plaintiff Tina Louise Roberts, proceeding pro se, filed an amended complaint1 18 against Defendants Ruth Riveria, Jovanna Q., and Studio15 Management and a motion 19 for an ex parte hearing. (Dkt. No. 13, FAC; Dkt. No. 14.) Based on the reasoning below, 20 the Court sua sponte DISMISSES the amended complaint for failure to state a claim and 21 DENIES motion for ex parte hearing as moot. 22 A. Sua Sponte Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 23 A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis2, (“IFP”) pursuant 24 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to mandatory sua sponte review and dismissal by the 25 26 1 The Court must liberally construe pro se pleadings. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th 27 Cir. 1987) (quoting Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982)). In liberally construing her 28 pleading, it appears that Plaintiff is seeking to file an amended complaint. 1 Court if it is “frivolous, or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 2 granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he 4 provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 5 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). § 1915(e)(2) mandates that a court reviewing a 6 complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 rule on its own motion 7 to dismiss before directing that the complaint be served by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. Under Federal Rule of 9 Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of 10 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 11 provides the defendant with fair notice of what the claim is and the basis upon which it 12 rests. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). While a plaintiff need 13 not give “detailed factual allegations,” a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts that, if true, 14 “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. 15 On August 4, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 16 pauperis and sua sponte dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim with leave to 17 amend. (Dkt. No. 8.) The Court explained that Plaintiff had not presented a short and 18 plain statement of the claim to support a cause of action. (Id.) 19 Similar to the complaint, the amended complaint again presents incoherent 20 allegations about harassment, threats and physical violence that are not fully intelligible. 21 Moreover, the complaint fails to present short and plain statements with legally relevant 22 facts to support a cause of action. Finally, the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint are 23 insufficient to put Defendants on notice of the claims against them as required by Rule 8. 24 Accordingly, the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 25 granted and the Court, sua sponte, dismisses it pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). 26 Conclusion 27 Based on the above, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES the amended complaint for 28 failure to state a claim without prejudice. The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s request for 1 || an ex parte hearing as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: August 18, 2022 Casto 0h 4 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28