(PS) Parker v. JP Morgan Chase ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AKIKA PARKER, No. 2:20-cv-00455-KJM-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JP MORGAN CHASE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The court previously granted plaintiff’s 18 request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. 19 (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 4.) 20 The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 21 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 22 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915(e)(2). 24 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 25 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 26 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 27 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 28 490 U.S. at 327. 1 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 2 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 3 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 4 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 5 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 6 upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 7 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 8 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 9 at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 10 the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 11 and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 12 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 13 The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint lack facial plausibility, and 14 therefore finds that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim. For example, plaintiff “makes 15 claim on an account . . . worth zillions of dollars.” (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff makes refence to this 16 account, which she claims to be entitled to, as an apparent slush fund for defendant, JP Morgan 17 Chase. (Id.) The complaint requests the court to “investigate the account.” (Id.) Plaintiff makes 18 multiple implausible and largely unintelligible assertions about the account and activities related 19 to the account. Plaintiff does not include any basis for jurisdiction, and does not mention any 20 statute, treaty, or provision of the Constitution that would grant this court jurisdiction. Similarly, 21 plaintiff does not include any legal theory—whether based on contract, tort, or statute—that 22 would allow her to recover from defendant. In short, plaintiff does not plead factual content “that 23 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 24 alleged.” See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading 25 policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and 26 succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Because 27 plaintiff has failed to comply with these requirements, the complaint must be dismissed. 28 If the court finds that a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the court 1 has discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126– 2 30 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the 3 defects in the complaint could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Id. at 1130–31; see 4 also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se litigant must be given 5 leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely 6 clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” (citing Noll v. 7 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear 8 that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. 9 Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105–06 (affirming dismissal and finding the plaintiff’s “theories of liability 10 either fall outside the limited waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States, or otherwise are 11 not within the jurisdiction of the federal courts”). 12 The undersigned finds that, as set forth above, plaintiff has failed to state a claim for 13 which relief can be granted. Plaintiff was previously provided an opportunity to amend her 14 complaint. However, plaintiff’s amended complaint suffers from the same defects as before and 15 again lacks facial plausibility. Further, plaintiff’s amended complaint again fails to give fair 16 notice of her claim or state the elements of a claim in a plain and concise manner. Accordingly, 17 the undersigned finds that amendment would be futile and therefore recommends dismissal 18 without leave to amend. 19 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED 20 without leave to amend. 21 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 22 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 23 after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written 24 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// MADE SO VENTING INI INEZ VUE PIO EEN OY ST MT 1 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that 2 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 3 | Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (th Cir. 1991). 4 | Dated: May 13, 2020 f° Lf i, / CAN fu fl. ay > CAROLYN K. DELANEY 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 | 16455.F&R 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28