Coxon v. United States District Court ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 BENJAMIN COXON, 7 Case No. 21-cv-05099-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 10 Defendant. 11 12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Having granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 15 1915(a)(1), the Court is required to review Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 16 to determine whether any claims are subject to dismissal on the basis that they: 1) are frivolous or 17 malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek monetary relief from 18 a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Marks v. Solcum, 98 19 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s 20 claims are insufficiently pled. Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this 21 case should not be dismissed. 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 This is the fifth case Plaintiff has brough in this Court in just over a year. See Case Nos. C- 24 20-5636 VC; C-20-9518 CRB; C-21-3587 JSW; C-21-4317 CRB. All of the previously filed 25 cases have been dismissed for failure to survive the Court’s review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In 26 addition, since filing the complaint in this action, Plaintiff has filed two more complaints, in Case 27 Nos. C-21-6141 JCS and C-21-6311 KAW. As in his previous cases, Plaintiff has filed a lengthy 1 regarding conduct he might have been subjected to and does not identify the individuals or entities 2 || who committed the alleged violations; nor does it link any alleged conduct to specific claims. 3 These allegations do not satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 4 || which requires that a plaintiff must make “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 5 || the pleader is entitled to relief.” Nor do they satisfy Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 6 || Procedure, which requires that the Court accept as true all allegations of fact but not conclusory 7 allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 8 || U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (“[T]he tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true is 9 inapplicable to legal conclusions [and] mere conclusory statements[.]’’). 10 || 11. CONCLUSION 11 Accordingly, no later than September 24, 2021, Plaintiff must file either an amended 12 || complaint curing the deficiencies stated herein or a response to this order addressing why his 13 current complaint is sufficient. If Plaintiff does not respond to this order by that date, the case will 14 || be reassigned to a United States district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed with 3 15 prejudice. The case management conference previously set for October 1, 2021 is continued to a 16 November 5, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: August 27, 2021 20 6 CZ J PH C. SPERO 21 ief Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28