1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRIGGETT PHELPS, Case No. 24-cv-06311-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE IFP APPLICATION AND 9 v. DISMISSAL

10 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF MARIN COUNTY, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pro se plaintiff Briggett Phelps has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) 14 in this suit. Dkt. No. 2. Although Phelps’ financial condition excuses payment of court filing 15 fees, and so the application is granted for that reason, the case is dismissed without prejudice 16 because the complaint fails to plausibly state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28

(e)(2); Nordin v. Scott, No. 3:21-cv-04717-JD,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 18 Oct. 8, 2021), aff’d No. 22-15186,

(9th Cir. July 10, 2023). 19 Even when read with the liberality afforded pro se litigants, see Johnson v. State of Cal., 20

(9th Cir. 2000), the complaint is difficult to understand and fails to allege 21 “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 22

(2007). The complaint contains allegations concerning, inter alia, the inability 23 to pay rent and utilities, a dog that fell ill from allegedly being poisoned, a faulty staircase down 24 which the plaintiff fell, and some sort of constant harassment or malice. See generally Dkt. No. 1. 25 It is unclear which allegations she intends to bring against which defendant, as the allegations 26 repeatedly refer only to “she.” See McHenry v. Renne,

(9th Cir. 1996) (“[A 27 filing] without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, 1 allegations plausibly establish federal jurisdiction, as it appears that all parties reside in California 2 and that the allegations sound in state tort and property law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (providing 3 || that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s 4 |} jurisdiction”). 5 A month after filing her complaint, plaintiff filed “25 pages attachments” adding new 6 || defendant and allegations that appear to concern grievances about disturbances outside plaintiff s 7 home, events that occurred many years ago, and complaints about case assignments in this district. 8 See generally Dkt. No. 6. Consideration of those additional allegations does not change the 9 || conclusion that the complaint fails to provide allegations that “state a claim to relief that is 10 || plausible on its face.” Twombly,

. 11 Because the Court cannot discern any legally cognizable claim, or one that would establish 12 || subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court dismisses plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff may file an 5 13 amended complaint by January 6, 2025. Failure to amend by the deadline will result in dismissal 14 and entry of judgment against her under Rule 41(b). 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: December 6, 2024

18 JAM ONATO 19 UnitgA States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28