Coxon v. United States District Court ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BENJAMIN COXON, Case No. 22-cv-01407-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA 9 v. PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 2 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff Benjamin Coxon, representing himself, has filed a complaint against several 14 federal defendants, as well as three revised complaints. Dkt. Nos. 1, 4–6. Before the Court is 15 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 2. 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 The Court may authorize the commencement of a civil action in forma pauperis if it is 18 satisfied that the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the action. 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). Having 20 reviewed Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the full amount of 21 fees, costs, or give security. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 (“An affidavit in support of an IFP 22 application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford 23 the necessities of life.”). Nevertheless, the Court finds that the action is legally frivolous and fails 24 to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Court accordingly DENIES the motion to 25 proceed in forma pauperis. 26 II. LEGAL STANDARD 27 Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the Court review an in forma pauperis complaint before 1 n.8. The Court must dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon 2 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 3 relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998); 4 Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001). 5 “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which 6 relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 8 2012) (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–31 (9th Cir. 2000)). The complaint must 9 include a “short and plain statement,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and “sufficient factual matter, 10 accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 11 662, 678 (2009) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff must provide the grounds that entitle him to relief. 12 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 13 Because Plaintiff is pro se, the Court construes the complaint liberally and affords him the 14 benefit of any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988); 15 cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”). The Court is not, 16 however, required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions 17 of fact, or unreasonable inferences. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th 18 Cir. 2001). 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 Although Plaintiff did not seek leave to amend for his revised complaints, the Court will 21 treat Plaintiff’s most recent filing as the operative complaint. See Dkt. No. 6. 22 The Court finds the complaint insufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Federal Rule of 23 Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff has filed a multitude of cases that have been dismissed for failure to 24 survive review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Case Nos. 3:22-cv-01536-JD; 4:22-cv-00906-YGR; 25 3:22-cv-00867-WHA; 4:21-cv-5099-HSG; 4:21-cv-08262-YGR; 4:21-cv-06311-JST; 3:20-cv- 26 05636-VC, 3:20-cv-09518-CRB, 4:21-cv-03587-JSW; 3:21-cv-06141-EMC; 3:21-cv-04317-CRB. 27 As in his previous cases, Plaintiff’s complaint is incomprehensible and devoid of factual 1 legal violation, and who committed the alleged violations. Further, Plaintiff cites only Title 18 of 2 || the United States Code, which regulates federal criminal activity and does not create a private 3 || right of action. See Faculty Members at Middle E. Sch. vy. Donovan, 2016 WL 1535080, at *9 4 |} (NLD. Cal. Apr. 15, 2016) (“Title 18 does not provide a private right of action.”’). 5 Even liberally construed, the complaint fails to provide the required short and plain 6 statement containing sufficient factual matter to support a cognizable complaint. See Brazil v. 7 United States Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although a pro se litigant . □ □ may 8 || be entitled to great leeway when the court construes his pleadings, those pleadings nonetheless 9 must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what it is that it 10 allegedly did wrong.”). 11 || Iv. CONCLUSION 12 Although it is the Court’s standard practice to allow amendment after an initial order of 13 || dismissal, here the Plaintiff already submitted three revised complaints. In light of □□□□□□□□□□□ 14 || prior opportunity to amend the complaint, the lengthy history of cases filed in this district in which 15 || Plaintiff has been repeatedly notified of the pleading requirements, and Plaintiff's continued a 16 || inability to articulate a plausible claim, the Court concludes that granting leave to amend would be 3 17 || futile. The Court thus DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 18 The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close the case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: 12/15/2022 21 Alauprerl 8 bl) HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28