Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02578/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02578-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PAUL LOUIS BLANK 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO PUBLIC LIBRARY, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-02578 GEB GGH PS 

ORDER 

 

 This court has jurisdiction to hear the matters that arise in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

section 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

 Plaintiff has requested authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by 1915(a) but he has failed to complete it insofar as 

he checked the box in section 3 indicating that he had received money in the last twelve months 

in the form of disability or workers compensation payments, but has failed to “describe . . . each 

source of money and state the amount received and what you expect you will continue to 

receive.” Plaintiff shall, therefore, be ordered to provide an amended Application to proceed in 

forma pauperis in which he completes this response within 14 days of the issuance of this order. 

I. SCREENING 

Addressing IFP status does not end the court’s inquiry, however. The federal IFP statute 

requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to 

Case 2:16-cv-02578-GEB-GGH Document 3 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 3
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 

2

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). 

Plaintiff must assist the court in making this determination by drafting his complaint so 

that it contains a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the 

reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), as well as a short and plain 

statement showing that plaintiffs are entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiffs, and in 

what way). Plaintiffs’ claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. See “Rule 8” of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federalrules-civil-procedure. Forms are also available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint 

in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, 

CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 

court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 

are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at 

Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011); Hebbe v. Pliler, 

627 F.3d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 2010). 

However, the court need not accept as true, legal conclusions cast in the form of factual 

allegations, or allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice. See Western 

Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 

266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.), as amended, 275 F.3d 1187 (2001). 

 Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Pro se complaints are construed liberally and may 

only be dismissed 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. Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 

Case 2:16-cv-02578-GEB-GGH Document 3 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 3
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 

3

2014). A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 

opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. 

See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 

II. THE COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff purports to state a claim for violation of Title VI, a federal statute, codified at 42 

U.S.C. § 2000d, against the Sacramento Public Library [hereinafter “Library”] for denying him 

access to that facility. This statute states that “No person in the United States shall, on the 

ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits 

of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial 

assistance.” Plaintiff has not identified the basis for his exclusion from the Sacramento Public 

Library. Further, he has not stated facts that would provide a basis for this court to conclude that 

the Library receives Federal financial assistance. Without such allegations regarding these two 

qualifying conditions for seeking relief under Title VI, he has failed to state a claim for relief 

that can be addressed by this court. The court will, however, give plaintiff an opportunity to 

amend his complaint within 30 days of the issuance of this Order if he can plead these required 

elements for a viable Title VI claim. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

1. Plaintiff shall complete and refile his request for in forma pauperis status within 14 

days of the issuance of this Order; 

2. Plaintiff shall file an amended Complaint within 30 days of the issuance of this 

Order that conforms to the requirements discussed. 

3. Failure to comply with this Order may result in a recommendation that the action 

be dismissed. 

Dated: November 1, 2016 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 2:16-cv-02578-GEB-GGH Document 3 Filed 11/02/16 Page 3 of 3