Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01416/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01416-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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 

KENNETH G. WILKINSON and KELLY 

G. WILKINSON, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION and 

WESTERN PROGRESSIVE LLC, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-01416 TLN AC (PS) 

ORDER 

 Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiffs have filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) and have submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 

I. Screening 

 A. Legal Standard 

The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 

“frivolous or 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). 

Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether the complaint is frivolous, by drafting the 

complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). The 

Case 2:24-cv-01416-TLN-AC Document 9 Filed 05/29/24 Page 1 of 6
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 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/currentrules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) 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), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 

to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 

sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are 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 (Rm. 4-200), 

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; 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). 

The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 

states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 

must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). 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). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 

to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-01416-TLN-AC Document 9 Filed 05/29/24 Page 2 of 6
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 

 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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 

facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678.  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), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 

B. The Complaint 

 Plaintiffs, citizens of California, filed suit on May 17, 2024, against PHH Mortgage 

Corporation, a citizen of New Jersey, and Western Progressive LLC, a citizen of the nation of 

Luxembourg. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiffs assert federal jurisdiction based on diversity of 

citizenship. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs allege that the events giving rise to their claims began in January 

of 2024. Id. at 4. They allege that one of the defendants made an offer for plaintiff to pay off a 

debt related to a property, that plaintiff conditionally accepted the offer through email “upon 

proof of a valid claim and offered multiple extensions.” Id. at 5. The conditions of acceptance 

included “production of original wet ink signed note to authenticate no forgery occurred and 

accounting showing disbursement of note, origination of loan funds, and disbursement of loan 

funds into makers account.” Id. at 5. Defendants set a trustees sale date for May 23, 2024.1 The 

complaint does not identify any legal causes of action. Plaintiffs seek $137,000 in damages, the 

face value of the promissory note, plus treble damages. Id. at 4. 

C. Analysis 

 The complaint does not contain a “short and plain” statement setting forth the basis for 

plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, and the complaint therefore does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 8(a). The complaint is drafted in an unclear manner such the court cannot tell what each 

defendant did that plaintiffs allege violated the law. From the allegations, it appears that 

1

 District Judge Troy L. Nunley denied a motion for a temporary restraining order related to the 

trustee’s sale on May 22, 2024. ECF No. 5. 

Case 2:24-cv-01416-TLN-AC Document 9 Filed 05/29/24 Page 3 of 6
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 

defendants offered some sort of payment plan to plaintiffs, and plaintiffs stated that they would 

accept the plan only if they could see the “wet ink” signature on the promissory note related to a 

loan on the property at issue. Based on these allegations alone, it does not appear that there was 

ever any final agreement between the parties to avoid a trustee’s sale. 

Further, importantly, the complaint does not identify any specific legal cause of action. 

Plaintiffs allege defendants are in “default on the conditional acceptance terms” and that 

defendants “breached the underlying agreement by failing to perform through exchange of 

consideration,” but plaintiffs do not specifically allege a breach of contract claim, nor to the facts 

establish that there was a contract at issue. Because there is no clearly identified or identifiable 

legal claim, the complaint does not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); it fails to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rather than recommending dismissal of the 

action, the undersigned will provide plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint to allege a 

cognizable claim and proper supporting facts. 

II. Amending the Complaint 

 If plaintiffs choose to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must contain a short 

and plain statement of plaintiff’s claims, including the legal basis for the claims and supporting 

facts. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially numbered paragraphs, 

with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each paragraph having its own 

number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the complaint. Each paragraph 

should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, 

forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. They are 

available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or 

online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 Plaintiffs must avoid excessive repetition of the same allegations. Plaintiffs must avoid 

narrative and storytelling. That is, the complaint should not include every detail of what 

happened, nor recount the details of conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim), nor 

give a running account of plaintiff’s hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint should 

contain only those facts needed to show how the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff. 

Case 2:24-cv-01416-TLN-AC Document 9 Filed 05/29/24 Page 4 of 6
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 

5 

 The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is 

being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 

facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 

complaint must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ 

which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not 

require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for 

what.” Id. at 1179. 

 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading to make plaintiffs 

amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete without reference to any 

prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, generally, an amended complaint supersedes the 

original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 

456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 

C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). 

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement 

of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

III. Additional Motions 

 Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 6. This motion is premature as 

the complaint has not yet been served. Because the motion is premature and procedurally 

improper, it will be vacated. 

IV. Pro Se Plaintiff’s Summary 

 It is not clear that this case can proceed in federal court. A complaint must have legal 

claims, meaning it must say what law or laws plaintiffs think that defendants violated. The court 

cannot tell from your complaint what legal harm was done to you. Your legal claims must be 

supported with facts that show how a defendant violated the law. Because the complaint as 

written does not clearly state any legal claims or supporting facts, it will not be served on 

defendants. Your lawsuit cannot proceed unless you fix the problems with your complaint. 

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-01416-TLN-AC Document 9 Filed 05/29/24 Page 5 of 6
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 

6 

You are being given 30 days to submit an amended complaint that provides legal claims 

and supporting facts. If you submit an amended complaint, it needs to explain in simple terms 

what laws or legal rights of yours were violated, by whom and how, and how those violations 

impacted each plaintiff. Without this information, the court cannot tell what legal claims you are 

trying to bring against the defendants. If you do not submit an amended complaint by the 

deadline, the undersigned will recommend that the case be dismissed. 

V. Conclusion 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiffs’ requests to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2 and 3) is GRANTED; 

2. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that 

complies with the instructions given above. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this 

order, the undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed. 

3. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 6) is VACATED as premature and 

procedurally improper. 

DATED: May 28, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-01416-TLN-AC Document 9 Filed 05/29/24 Page 6 of 6