Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00091/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00091-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
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

 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. 1

Case No. C 10-0091 JF (PVT)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(JFEX2)

**E-Filed 8/23/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOHN A. ROMAYOR,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DEBORAH HOLLAND, EXECUTIVE VICE

PRESIDENT AT PUBLISHERS

CLEARINGHOUSE,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 10-0091 JF (PVT)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 1

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

[RE: Doc. No. 2, 14 ]

On January 7, 2010, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint and an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. On January 21, 2010, Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull issued

an order to reassign the case and a Report and Recommendation concluding that Plaintiff’s

complaint should be dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff did not file any objections to Judge

Trumbull’s Report and Recommendation. On April 13, 2010, the Court adopted the Report and

Recommendation and pursuant thereto dismissed the instant action with leave to amend. The

Court directed Plaintiff to file any amended pleading within thirty (30) days. Instead of filing an

amended complaint within the allotted time, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on

June 3, 2010. The Court denied that motion as premature because there was no operative

complaint. Given Plaintiff’s pro se status and his evident desire to pursue the action, the Court

did not dismiss the case for failure to prosecute, but instead granted Plaintiff additional time

Case 5:10-cv-00091-JF Document 15 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 4
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

Case No. C 10-0091 JF (PVT)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(JFEX2)

within which to file an amended complaint setting forth with specificity his claims against

Defendant. The Court directed Plaintiff to file any amended pleading on or before July 27, 2010

and stated that if Plaintiff failed to do so the Court would dismiss the action for failure to

prosecute. 

 On July 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint consisting of several

documents, including copies of opinions issued in other unrelated cases against Defendant,

articles written about Defendant, copies of consumer complaints written about Defendant posted

on a consumer affairs website, and various documents sent to Plaintiff from Defendant. None of

these documents sets forth with particularity Plaintiff’s own factual allegations against

Defendant. Because Plaintiff alleges that defendant has committed fraud, such specific

allegations are required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).

Generally, a district court must give pro se litigants an opportunity to amend their

complaint. Courts shall give leave to amend “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

Additionally, a federal court liberally may construe the inartful pleading of parties appearing pro

se. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). Applying these standards, the Court will grant

Plaintiff a final opportunity to attempt to state a valid claim. Any amended pleading must be

filed within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court may authorize the commencement of a civil

action in forma pauperis if the court is satisfied that plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees necessary

to pursue the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The court may deny in forma pauperis status,

however, if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or

without merit. O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990); Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank

& Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff has not presented any information

regarding his financial status. Moreover, as explained above, both Plaintiff’s original complaint

and his first amended complaint are so uncertain that it is impossible to determine whether

Plaintiff ever would be able to set forth a cognizable claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to

proceed in forma pauperis will be denied without prejudice.

Case 5:10-cv-00091-JF Document 15 Filed 08/23/10 Page 2 of 4
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

Case No. C 10-0091 JF (PVT)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(JFEX2)

ORDER

(1) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

Any amended complaint shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the filing of this order.

(2) Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:8 /23/2010

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-00091-JF Document 15 Filed 08/23/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case No. C 10-0091 JF (PVT)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(JFEX2)

Copies of Order served on:

Mr. John Romayor

2032 Southwest Expressway Apt. 49

San Jose, CA, 95126

Ms. Deborah Holland

101 Winners Circle

Port Washington, NY 11050

Case 5:10-cv-00091-JF Document 15 Filed 08/23/10 Page 4 of 4