(PS) Legardy v. Taco Bell

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FLETCHER LEGARDY Case No. 2:23-cv-01332-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. SCREENING THE COMPLAINT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TACO BELL, TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Defendant. ECF Nos. 1 & 2 16 AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 18 Plaintiff filed a complaint purporting to assert claims against Taco Bell, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. His complaint, however, fails to state a claim, and I will recommend that it be dismissed with leave to amend. I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2).

23 Screening and Pleading Requirements 24 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 28 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted).

6 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 7 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017).

10 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

13 Analysis 14 The complaint is unintelligible and fails to assert any cause of action. See generally ECF No. 1. Indeed, the complaint contains one sentence describing the purport claim: “The courts did not do fact checks on the [illegible] I asked: call my Congresswoman Doris Matsui 916 498- 5600.” Id. at 5.

18 The complaint fails to comport with Rule 8’s requirement that it present a short and plain statement of plaintiff’s claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The complaint names “Taco Bell” as the defendant, but the complaint does not provide any identifiable information for which Taco Bell he wishes to bring suit against. And, in any event, the complaint asserts no discernable facts relating to Taco Bell. Allegations in a complaint must identify actions taken by a defendant to support a claim for relief. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.”). The complaint fails to meet that requirement.

26 I will allow plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this action be dismissed. Plaintiff should also take care to add specific factual allegations against the defendant. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will | supersede the current one. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) | (enbanc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without | reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is | filed, the current one no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in | the original, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in | sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer | to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will || recommend that this action be dismissed.

9 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted.

11 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an | amended complaint or advise the court he wishes to stand by his current complaint. If he selects || the latter option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed.

14 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be || dismissed.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 ( 1 Oy — Dated: _ January 9, 2024 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE