(PS) Robinson v. Bettencourt ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSE A. ROBINSON, Case No. 2:24-cv-00760-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. SCREENING THE COMPLAINT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION 14 DENNIS BETTENCOURT, et al., TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Defendants. ECF Nos. 1 & 2 16 AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 17 18 Plaintiff Rose Robinson has filed a complaint against Dennis Bettencourt, Costal Capital 19 Private Lender & Investments, and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. Her complaint, however, fails 20 to state a claim, and I will recommend that it be dismissed with leave to amend. I will grant 21 plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing 22 required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 23 Screening and Pleading Requirements 24 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 26 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 27 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 28 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 1 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 2 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 3 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 4 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 5 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 6 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 7 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 8 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 9 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 10 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 11 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 12 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 13 Analysis 14 The complaint presents fragmented grievances surrounding the foreclosure of plaintiff’s 15 home. The complaint itself contains no independent allegations, but rather is comprised of 16 numerous attachments. From those attachments, the court understands that plaintiff, who 17 identifies as a disabled black woman, owned a home in Benicia, California. ECF No. 1 at 21. 18 Plaintiff had a mortgage on the home through defendant Wells Fargo, and, at some point, plaintiff 19 obtained a home remodeling loan from defendant Coastal Capital. Id. at 11. The second loan 20 was for $137,000, but plaintiff claims that defendant Coastal Capital only gave her $80,000. Id. 21 at 45. Plaintiff requested the remaining $40,000, but defendant Coastal Capital refused to give 22 her the money because she was three months late on her loan payments. Id. at 15, 46. It appears 23 that due to this default, and possibly a default of the Wells Fargo loan, plaintiff’s home was sold 24 at a foreclosure sale. Defendant Bettancourt purchased the home at the foreclosure sale. Id. at 25 78-81. Following the foreclosure sale, plaintiff was evicted from the property. Id. at 33. In 26 October 2023, Bettencourt filed a case in Solano County Superior Court against plaintiff for her 27 wrongful possession of the property. Id. at 34-36 (Solano County Case No. CL23-01927). 28 1 Plaintiff alleges that the actions of the defendants violated her rights under the Americans with 2 Disabilities Act. Id. at 4-5. 3 The complaint does not state a cognizable claim. As an initial matter, plaintiff’s cursory 4 citation to the ADA does not provide the defendants or the court of the specific claim plaintiff is 5 attempting to allege. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The 6 plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants 7 engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.”). Moreover, it does not appear that the complaint 8 contains allegations against the named defendants of discrimination. 9 I will allow plaintiff a chance to amend her complaint before recommending that this 10 action be dismissed. Plaintiff should also take care to add specific factual allegations against each 11 defendant. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will 12 supersede the current one. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) 13 (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without 14 reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is 15 filed, the current one no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in 16 the original, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in 17 sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer 18 to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will 19 recommend that this action be dismissed. 20 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 22 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an 23 amended complaint or advise the court she wishes to stand by her current complaint. If she 24 selects the latter option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 25 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 26 dismissed. 27 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ September 3, 2024 Q_—_—. 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28