Wood v. Whole Foods

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Wood v. Whole Foods

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MICHELLE YVONNE WOOD, Case No. 22-cv-05651-JD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE IFP STATUS AND 10 v. DISMISSAL

11 WHOLE FOODS, Defendant. 12

13 14 Pro se plaintiff Michelle Yvonne Wood filed a complaint and an application for leave to 15 proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. The IFP application is granted, and the case is 16 dismissed. 17 IFP requests are evaluated under

28 U.S.C. § 1915

. The first question is whether the 18 plaintiff’s financial status excuses payment of the court’s filing fees. The answer is yes. Wood 19 states that she is unemployed, and pays monthly expenses of approximately $1,080 out of a 20 monthly Social Security benefit of $1,000 and monthly EBT food stamps of $200, which are her 21 sole sources of income. Dkt. No. 2. Wood meets the financial qualifications for IFP status. 22 The next question is whether the complaint is sufficient to stand, and the answer is no. The 23 Court may “at any time” dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief may 24 be granted.

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(3)(B). The standard is the same as under Federal Rule of Civil 25 Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter,

668 F.3d 1108, 1112

(9th Cir. 2012). As a pro se plaintiff, 26 Wood “gets a liberal construction of [her] complaint and the benefit of any doubts, but [she] still 27 must satisfy the requirements of Rule 8 and state facts sufficient to allege a plausible claim.” 1 The complaint is entirely implausible. Wood alleges a claim for “animal slavery” under 2 the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and asks for an order barring the Whole 3 Foods grocery chain from selling meat and dairy products. See Dkt. No. 1. Such claims are not 4 || cognizable. 5 While it is the Court’s practice to liberally grant amendment, there is nothing Wood can 6 say that might make the 13th Amendment claim plausible. Consequently, the case is dismissed 7 with prejudice. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: October 7, 2022 10 11 JAMES MONATO 12 United tates District Judge

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown