Opinion
3:22-CV-5222-DGE
04-13-2022
MARCUS JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PUYALLUP TRIBE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO FILE IFP APPLICATIONS AND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DAVID W. CHRISTEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The District Court has referred Plaintiffs' pending Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and proposed complaint to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel pursuant to Amended General Order 02-19.
On April 6, 2022, Plaintiffs Marcus Jones, Charles Jones, and Tom Jones filed a proposed civil complaint and Marcus filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without paying the filing fee for a civil case. See Dkt. 1, 1-1. Charles and Tom did not file applications to proceed IFP. 1
The Court will refer to the plaintiffs by their first names to avoid confusion.
Standard for Granting Application for IFP. The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, the court has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed IFP. Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, “[w]here there are multiple plaintiffs in a single action, the plaintiffs may not proceed in forma pauperis unless all of them demonstrate inability to pay the filing fee.” Martinez v. Lutz, 2018 WL 3924266, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2018).
Application to Proceed IFP. Marcus filed an application to proceed IFP. Dkt. 1. He states he is employed, but does not make any money. Id. Marcus also states he has $840 in his savings account. See Dkt. 7, p. 1. Charles and Tom have not filed applications to procced IFP. Therefore, at this time, the Court cannot determine if Plaintiffs qualify for IFP status. To proceed with this action, Marcus, Charles and Tom must each file their own application to proceed IFP.
Review of the Complaint. While this case cannot proceed until the Court has received IFP applications from each Plaintiff, the Court has reviewed the proposed complaint. Because Plaintiffs filed this proposed complaint pro se, the Court has construed the pleadings liberally and has afforded Plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.1988). In the proposed complaint, which is difficult to decipher, Plaintiffs have stated no allegations or claims against the Defendants. See Dkt. 1-1.
Sua Sponte Dismissal - Standard on Rule 12 (b). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), a case may be dismissed for “(1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) lack of personal jurisdiction; (3) improper venue; (4) insufficient process; (5) insufficient service of process; (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (7) failure to join a party under Rule 19.” Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12b)(6), a federal court may dismiss a case sua sponte when it is 2 clear that the plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Omar v. SeaLand Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir.1987) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b)(6). Such a dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.”). See also Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 30708 (1989) (there is little doubt a federal court would have the power to dismiss frivolous complaint sua sponte, even in absence of an express statutory provision). A complaint is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).
Analysis of Plaintiffs' Claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d).
Here, the proposed complaint does not contain a short, plain statement showing Plaintiffs are entitled to relief. Dkt. 1-1. In fact, as stated above, the proposed complaint does not include any claims for relief or any statement of facts. Id. Therefore, Plaintiffs are ordered to file an amended complaint which complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and this Order. The amended complaint should contain a single complaint that includes a short, plain statement explaining the claims in this action.
Leave to Amend. Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action. See Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir.1995).
As the proposed complaint is devoid of any factual allegations or claims the Court cannot determine if an amendment can cure the defects of the proposed complaint. Therefore, the Court will allow Plaintiffs leave to amend. However, if Plaintiffs do not file separate IFP applications 3 and an amended complaint that complies with this Order on or before May 6, 2022 the Court will recommend dismissal of this action.
Decision on Application to Proceed IFP. A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 1998), quoting Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). Based upon the above analysis of the deficiencies in the proposed complaint, the Court finds it appropriate to defer ruling on Marcus's Application to Proceed IFP.
Conclusion. Accordingly, the Court is hereby deferring ruling on Marcus's Application to Proceed IFP and Plaintiffs are ordered to file applications to proceed IFP and the proposed amended complaint on or before May 6, 2022. 4