Taleff v. Sattgast Taleff ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TONY TALEFF, Case No.: 19cv2066-JAH (DEB) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 12 v. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND SUA SPONTE 13 MARCIA LYNN SATTGAST TALEFF; DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S REDONDO BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL 14 COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO DISTRICT, STATE A CLAIM 15 Defendants. 16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 On July 17, 2020, Plaintiff Tony Taleff (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a First 19 Amended Complaint (“FAC”) along with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 20 (“IFP”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Doc. Nos. 5, 6. After a careful review of the 21 motion and for the reasons set forth below, the Court (1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for 22 leave to proceed IFP [Doc. No. 6]; and (2) Sua sponte DISMISSES Plaintiff’s FAC [Doc. 23 No. 5], without prejudice. 24 DISCUSSION 25 I. Plaintiff’s IFP Motion 26 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 27 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 28 1 $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 2 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 4 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Courts grant leave to proceed IFP when 5 plaintiffs submit an affidavit, including a statement of all of their assets, showing the 6 inability to pay the statutory filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 7 In support of his IFP motion, Plaintiff submitted an amended application to proceed 8 in this Court without paying fees or costs. See Doc. No. 6. The application states Plaintiff 9 is unemployed but receives $832.00 from retirement and an additional $434.00 from an 10 unspecified source, for a total monthly income of $1,266.00. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff reports 11 $2,000.00 in assets and has $2,000.00 in his only bank account. Moreover, Plaintiff lists 12 an average monthly expense of $1,265.00. Based upon the information presented by 13 Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the 14 filling fees required to prosecute this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s IFP Motion is 15 GRANTED. 16 II. Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 17 A. Standard of Review 18 Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by 19 any person proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a 20 mandatory sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is “frivolous, 21 malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek[s] monetary 22 relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. 23 Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 24 are not limited to prisoners.”). “[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits, but requires, a district 25 court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 26 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Here, even though Plaintiff is entitled to 27 proceed IFP, his complaint is subject to dismissal because Plaintiff fails to state a claim 28 upon which relief may be granted. 1 “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 2 which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 3 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 4 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain “a 5 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. 6 R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 7 to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 8 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)). 9 B. Analysis 10 On May 14, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP request and dismissed Plaintiff’s 11 original complaint for failure to state a claim. Although it was doubtful that Plaintiff would 12 be able to cure the deficiencies in his claims by amendment, the Court provided Plaintiff 13 with an opportunity to file a FAC. Plaintiff proceeded to file a FAC, however the FAC did 14 not address or rectify any of the deficiencies of the original complaint. The allegations in 15 the FAC are identical to the original complaint. As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s FAC fails 16 to contain a short, plain statement showing that he is entitled to relief under Federal Rule 17 of Civil Procedure 8(a). Instead of identifying the alleged harm and the specific Defendants 18 responsible for each harm, the FAC only contains a multitude of unfortunate events and 19 circumstances that Plaintiff has encountered. See, e.g., McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 20 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Prolix, confusing complaints such as the ones plaintiffs filed in this 21 case impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges. As a practical matter, the judge and 22 opposing counsel, in order to perform their responsibilities, cannot use a complaint such as 23 the one plaintiff filed, and must prepare outlines to determine who is being sued for what.”). 24 Moreover, the allegations in the FAC fail to give adequate notice to the named Defendants 25 of the claims against them, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Plaintiff’s 26 FAC contains generalized allegation, the majority of which have no relation to the named 27 Defendants. The Court is unable to infer a deprivation of a federal right or a violation of 28 state law caused by the Defendants for Plaintiff to proceed with his 42 U.S. Code § 1983 1 claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s FAC fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted 2 ||and must be dismissed under Section 1915(e)(2). 3 ||TII. Leave to Amend 4 Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the plaintiff can correct 5 complaint’s deficiency. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 6 || 1988). However, courts generally grant leave to amend unless amendment would be futile. 7 || Townsend v. Univ. Of Alaska, 543 F.3d 478, 485 (9th Cir. 2008). Although the Court has 8 ||serious doubts in Plaintiff's ability to state a cognizable claim, the Court will provide 9 || Plaintiff with a final opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff must include a 10 |/short and plain statement that entitles Plaintiff to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In 11 || addition, Plaintiff must indicate what relief he is seeking from the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. 12 ||P 8(a)(3). 13 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 14 Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby: 15 1. GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 16 1915(a) [Doc No. 2]; 17 2. Sua sponte DISMISSES this action without prejudice due to □□□□□□□□□□□ 18 failure to state a claim [Doc. No. 1]; and 19 3. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint on or before November 20 23, 2020. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 ||DATED: October 7, 2020 25 26 □□□ John A. Houston 27 Jnited States District Judge 28