Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01801/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01801-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL CEVALLOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01801-EDL 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 9

Plaintiff Michael Cevallos filed his complaint and Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP Application”) on April 21, 2015. On April 24, 2015, this Court GRANTED 

Plaintiff’s IFP Application but reserved its determination of compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B). On April 30, 2015, Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 On May 7, 2015, this Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, 

noting that “Plaintiff’s complaint does not make any clear claims against any Defendant and is 

largely unintelligible” and instructing Plaintiff that any amended complaint “should clearly state 

Plaintiff’s factual allegations and make it plain which allegations and causes of action relate to 

which defendants.” (Dkt. 7 at 2.) On May 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. For 

the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the 

commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a 

person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.” The 

 

1

To the extent that this order is dispositive, the Court does not require the consent of Defendants 

because Defendants have not been served and therefore are not parties under the meaning of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). See Ornelas v. De Frantz, 2000 WL 973684, *2, n.2 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (citing

Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (magistrate judge had jurisdiction to dismiss

prisoner’s civil rights action without consent of the defendants because the defendants had not 

been served yet and therefore were not parties)).

Case 3:15-cv-01801-EDL Document 10 Filed 06/09/15 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

court may dismiss a case sua sponte if the court determines that the party applying for in forma 

pauperis status has filed a frivolous action or that the action fails to state a claim on which relief 

may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Dismissal on these grounds is often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare 

prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints. Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is still unintelligible and does not state any cognizable

claims against any Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a complaint must contain a “short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”). Leave to amend would 

be futile, so the Court dismisses the amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to 

amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2015

________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01801-EDL Document 10 Filed 06/09/15 Page 2 of 2