Ransburg v. United States
Decision Date | 17 November 2011 |
Docket Number | No. CIV S-11-1558 KJM DAD PS,CIV S-11-1558 KJM DAD PS |
Parties | LESTER RANSBURG, III, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Plaintiff Lester Ransburg, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with this action. The case has been referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 72-302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff has filed an application for waiver of filing fees and costs, but has not submitted the application on a proper form. Plaintiff's application will therefore be denied, and plaintiff will be granted thirty days to submit a new application on the form provided with this order. Plaintiff is cautioned that the application form includes a section that must be completed by a correctional official, and the application must be accompanied by a certified copy of plaintiff's prison trust account statement, or institutional equivalent, that covers the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of this action.
Plaintiff is advised that a prisoner who brings a civil action in forma pauperis is required to pay the full amount of the filing fee in installments when funds are available in his prison trust account. An initial partial filing fee would be assessed if plaintiff had any deposits in his account or if he had a monthly balance in the account in any month during the six months preceding the filing of this case. Plaintiff's custodian would be ordered to collect fees from plaintiff's account and mail them to this court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The custodian would be required to continue sending available amounts until the $350.00 filing fee is paid in full, even if this case is closed before the full amount is paid.
Moreover, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the complaint at any time if the court determines that the pleading is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).
The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:
A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff's claims and allege facts that state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557. A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff's claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649.
Here, plaintiff alleges as follows. Plaintiff was diagnosed with PTSD after participating in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan as a member of the United States Marine Corps. (Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at 1-2.) His PTSD rendered him unfit for active military duty. (Id. at 1.) Despite the severity of his PTSD and the determination that he was unfit for active duty, he was found to be only 10% disabled as a result of his PTSD. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff argues that based on the severity of his PTSD he should have been found to be at least 50 % disabled, which would render him eligible for benefits such as healthcare and disability retirement pay pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1201. (Id. at 2, 8.) Plaintiff seeks, in part, an award of "money benefits" and "interest, costs and attorney's fees." (Id. at 18.)
The Ninth Circuit recently described the "labryinthe process" a veteran must undergo in applying for benefits from the Veterans Benefits Administration ("VBA"), explaining:
To continue reading
Request your trial