Murphy, Esq. v. Hershey Chocolate Corporation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 SHANNON O. MURPHY, ESQ., SR., Case No. 20-cv-05895-LB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT 13 v. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 14 HERSHEY CHOCOLATE Re: ECF No. 1 CORPORATION, 15 Defendant. 16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 The plaintiff Shannon O. Murphy, Sr., who represents himself in this action and who is 19 proceeding in forma pauperis, sued Hershey Chocolate Corporation, alleging that he became ill 20 after eating a Hershey’s chocolate bar.1 Before directing the United States Marshal to serve the 21 defendant with the plaintiff’s complaint, the court must screen in for minimal legal viability. 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court dismisses the complaint, with leave to amend, because the 23 plaintiff has not plausibly pleaded a claim, and allows amendment by September 18, 2020 if the 24 plaintiff can cure the complaint’s deficiencies. 25 26 27 1 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 2–3. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint 1 STATEMENT 2 1. Complaint 3 The plaintiff alleges that he became ill after ingesting Hershey’s “Mr. Good Bar” candy bar.2 4 Hershey apparently sent the plaintiff two letters, each containing a check for $25, presumably for 5 his adverse reaction to the product.3 He alleges that Hershey “did not pay sufficient, careful” 6 attention to his illness.4 7 The complaint alleges claims for breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and discrimination: 8 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT: Since Hershey Company, did in fact, of two occassions write a check, assembled and sent to therefore case relevant, distract, 9 and ignore their injury claimant Murphy, while breach contract, as contract should somewhere state, exclaim Hershey Chocolate Corporation, subject issue fair injury 10 claim, the here case plaintiff is certainly compel add this event for regards comply 11 valid, subsequent cause of action. 12 2. TORT NEGLIGENCE: Hershey Chocolate Corporation did in fact issue two checks, exclaim monetary value, sufficient, in order [to] distract and detour fair due 13 process administrations for regards injury claim, to plaintiff; Because the total amount of regards both relevant checks issued by Hershey Chocolate Corporation, 14 was in fact insufficient, restitute, compensate for all their claimant stated at injury claim, plaintiff filed lawsuit. 15 3. FRAUD — APPROPRIATE SERVICE: Plaintiff’s Murphy states here that 16 because plaintiff’s injury claim was fact, ignored, that it did not receive a standard 17 and complaint Hershey’s company, injury claim, fair due process, administrations, and for especially, where there was illness occur by “ingestion” of theirs Hershey 18 chocolate, candy bar product, “Mr. Good Bar”, plaintiff must exclaim that form of “fraud”, has occur appropriate case, where service of a decent, and fair injury claim 19 should have been at placed regards plaintiff exclaim ill, suffer; This does in fact include that since injury/illness by ingestion did occur, that an more sufficient 20 investigation, and includes for relevant laboratory work, should become present, 21 case for injury/illness proper claim result. 22 4. DISCRIMINATION: Plaintiff does apply discrimination for relevant, cause of action here this court complaint, as a form of discrimination was explained 23 [above] . . . .5 24 25 26 2 Id. at 3 (¶ 4). 3 Id. at 2 (¶ 1). 27 4 Id. 1 The plaintiff also attached a medical record dated October 28, 2015. The record is a 2 psychiatric discharge note. The plaintiff apparently went to the hospital because he was “brought 3 by secret service agents” and was “trying to reach [the] President.” He was diagnosed with 4 “Bipolar I disorder manic episode with [p]sychotic features.”6 5 6 2. Procedural History 7 The plaintiff filed his complaint on August 3, 2020, in the Eastern District of California.7 He 8 alleges diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.8 On August 21, 2020, Magistrate Judge 9 Allison Claire transferred the case to the Northern District of California because the plaintiff 10 resides in this District and the injury appears to have occurred here.9 The court granted the 11 plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.10 12 13 ANALYSIS 14 1. Sua Sponte Screening – 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 15 A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is 16 subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent that it is 17 frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 18 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. 19 Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) 20 (en banc). Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an in forma pauperis complaint 21 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the United States Marshals to serve 22 the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. The Ninth 23 Circuit has noted that “[t]he language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule 24 25 6 Id. at 4. 26 7 Id. 8 Id. at 1 (¶ 1). 27 9 Order – ECF No. 4. 1 of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). As the 2 Supreme Court has explained, “[the in forma pauperis statute] is designed largely to discourage 3 the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying 4 litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 5 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 6 Under Rule 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court must dismiss a complaint 7 if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint 8 include a “short and plain statement” showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief. “To survive a 9 motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a 10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal 11 quotation marks omitted); see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The 12 complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but the plaintiff must “provide the 13 grounds of his entitlement to relief,” which “requires more than labels and conclusions”; a mere 14 “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 15 555 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). 16 In determining whether to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the court is ordinarily 17 limited to the face of the complaint. Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 18 (9th Cir. 2002). Factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and reasonable 19 inferences drawn from them must be construed in favor of the plaintiff. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. 20 Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1996). The court cannot assume, however, that “the [plaintiff] 21 can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged.” Assoc. Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State 22 Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). “Nor is the court required to accept as true 23 allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable 24 inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). 25 Federal courts must construe pro se complaints liberally. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 26 (1980); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). A pro se plaintiff need only 27 provide defendants with fair notice of his claims and the grounds upon which they rest. Hearns, 1 413 F.3d at 1043. He need not plead specific legal theories so long as sufficient factual averments 2 show that he may be entitled to some relief. Id. at 1041. 3 When dismissing a case for failure to state a claim, the Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that 4 a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, 5 unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” 6 Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130 (internal quotations omitted). 7 8 2. The Complaint Fails to State a Claim 9 The complaint does not clearly state a legally cognizable claim or facts that may support one. 10 “A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement showing 11 that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Directness and clarity are 12 mandatory: “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 13 Although “specific facts are not necessary,” the statement must “give the defendant fair notice of 14 what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Tannenbaum v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs. & 15 Rehab., C 18-6770 WHA (PR), 2019 WL 469975, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2019) (cleaned up). 16 The Ninth Circuit has explained: “Something labeled a complaint but written . . . prolix in 17 evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing 18 for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 19 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). 20 The plaintiff’s complaint is not understandable and lacks sufficient factual allegations to state 21 a claim to relief. For each of the four claims that he alleges, it is unclear what facts or legal 22 authorities support these claims. In addition, although the plaintiff alleges diversity jurisdiction, he 23 does not state his or Hershey’s citizenships. The court thus cannot discern whether it has subject- 24 matter jurisdiction. 25 26 27 1 CONCLUSION 2 The court has identified the complaint’s deficiencies. 3 The plaintiff may file an amended complaint no later than 21 days from entry of this order by 4 September 18, 2020. In it, he must identify each claim clearly and state the specific facts and 5 actors that relate to each claim. He must also allege the basis of this court’s subject-matter 6 || jurisdiction. If the plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by the court’s ordered deadline, the 7 court will order the Clerk of the Court to reassign the case to a district court judge and recommend 8 the newly assigned judge dismiss the case. Alternatively, the plaintiff may also voluntarily dismiss 9 this case by filing a one-page notice of voluntary dismissal, which will operate as a dismissal 10 || without prejudice, thereby allowing him to file a complaint later. 11 12 IT ISSO ORDERED. 13 Dated: August 28, 2020 Ld AC OT 5 LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28