Wright v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03204


Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 FRANKLIN H. WRIGHT, 7 Case No. 15-cv-03204-JSW Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 9 EX PARTE APPLICATION RE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SERVICE AND DISMISSING SECOND 10 SECURITY, et al., AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE 11 Defendants. Re: Docket Nos. 21, 23 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 Now before the Court is the application to proceed in forma pauperis filed by plaintiff 15 Franklin H. Wright ("Plaintiff") and Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. A district court may 16 deny in forma pauperis status and sua sponte dismiss an action under certain circumstances, 17 including when the underlying complaint sought to be filed is frivolous or when it fails to state a 18 claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Cato v. United States, 19 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 20 On August 20, 2015, the Court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff's First Amended 21 Complaint leave to amend, because he had not complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) 22 Specifically, the Court noted that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint does not contain clear and 23 concise factual statements to support his twelve claims for relief and, thus, still does not comply 24 with the requirements of Rule 8. Instead of including allegations in the body of his pleading, 25 Plaintiff made references to other cases and filings, which made it impossible for the Court to 26 discern whether it had jurisdiction over the claims, whether Plaintiff's claims would be barred 27 based on doctrines of immunity, whether Plaintiff may be collaterally estopped from asserting the 28 claims or whether there was some other legal basis to conclude that Plaintiff's claims are futile, 1 succh as whetheer his claims would be baarred by Hecck v. Humprrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)), or 2 pro osecutorial im mmunity. (S See generallyy Docket Noo. 18, Order Denying Appplication too Proceed in 3 Forrma Pauperis and Dismissing First Amended A Coomplaint ("A August 20, 20015 Order").) 4 Plaintifff's Second Amended A Co omplaint sufffers from thhese same deefects, despitte the 5 Court's directio on that he must m set forth h the facts thaat support thhe claims forr relief in thee body of hiss 6 pleeading. For these t reason ns, and for th he reasons seet forth in thee Court's Auugust 20, 2015 Order, 7 thee Court DEN NIES Plaintifff's renewed application to proceed iin forma pauuperis. 8 The Co ourt has given n Plaintiff tw wo opportunnities to amennd his claim ms in this casee, and it 9 con ncludes that any further attempts to amend a woulld be futile. Accordinglyy, the Court 10 DIS SMISSES, WITH W PREJJUDICE, thee Second Am mended Com mplaint., andd it DISMISS SES 11 Plaaintiff's Seco ond Amendeed Complain nt. Cf. Cafassso v. Generaal Dyanamiccs C4 System ms, Inc., 637 12 F.3 3d 1047, 105 58-59 (9th Cir. 2011) (up pholding dennial of leave to amend w where amendm ment would Northern District of California United States District Court 13 hav ve been futille because off "proposed pleading's eextraordinaryy prolixity")) (citing casees); 14 MccHenry v. Reenne, 84 F.3d d 1172, 1177 7-80 (9th Cirr. 1996) ("prropriety of ddismissal forr failure to 15 com mply with Rule R 8 does not n depend on n whether thhe complaintt is wholly w without meritt" and even 16 if factual f elemeents of the cause of actio on are presennt, but are sccattered throughout the ccomplaint 17 and d are not org ganized into a "short and d plain statem ment of the cclaim," dism missal for faillure to 18 satisfy Rule 8 is i proper). 19 In lightt of this rulin ng, the Courtt DENIES, A AS MOOT, P Plaintiff's Ex Parte appllication 20 reg garding serviice. The Cou urt shall enteer judgment, and the Cleerk shall close this file. 21 IT IS SO S ORDER RED. 22 Daated: August 31, 2015 23 24 ___________________________ JE EFFREY S. W WHITE 25 Unnited States D District Judgge 26 27 28 2