Bhatnagar v. Presidio Trust, Case No. 14-cv-00327-MEJ

• Decision Date: 11 February 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 14-cv-00327-MEJ
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: SANJAY BHATNAGAR, Plaintiff, v. THE PRESIDIO TRUST, Defendant.

SANJAY BHATNAGAR, Plaintiff,
v.
THE PRESIDIO TRUST, Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00327-MEJ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: February 11, 2014

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
INTRODUCTION

On January 22, 2014, Plaintiff Sanjay Bhatnagar filed a Complaint and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES the complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

BACKGROUND

The Complaint purports to allege a personal injury claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2671, the Federal Tort Claims Act, against the Presidio Trust, a government agency. Compl., Dkt. No. 1. On November 14, 2009, Plaintiff was injured when he hit a speed bump while riding his bicycle in the Presidio. Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that the Presidio Trust installed the dangerous speed bump but failed to provide adequate warning of its hazard to bicyclists. Id. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff alleges he suffered spinal injuries which rendered him disabled. Id.

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court may authorize the commencement of a civil action in forma pauperis if it is satisfied that the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees

Page 2

necessary to pursue the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Here, Plaintiff has submitted the required documentation, and it is evident from the application that Plaintiff's assets and income are insufficient to enable Plaintiff to pay the filing fees. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis.

SUA SPONTE SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

A. Legal Standard

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an in forma pauperis complaint make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing that the complaint be served by the United States Marshal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127; see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that the language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6)). As the United States Supreme Court has explained, "[the in forma pauperis statute] is designed largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).

"Frivolousness" within the meaning of the in forma pauperis standard of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) are distinct concepts. A complaint is "frivolous" when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Id. at 325 (definition of "frivolous . . . embraces not only the arguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation"). When determining whether to dismiss a complaint as "frivolous" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the Court has "'the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations,'" meaning that the Court "is not bound, as it usually is when making a determination

Page 3

based solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the plaintiff's allegations." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting Nietzke, 490 U.S. at 327). Further, the Ninth Circuit has expressly held that frivolous litigation "is not limited to cases in which a legal claim is entirely without merit . . . . [A] person with a measured legitimate claim may cross the line into frivolous litigation by asserting facts that are grossly exaggerated or totally false." Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2007).

The Court may also dismiss a complaint sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(6). Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988). Under Rule 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint include a "short and plain statement" showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief. "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)...