Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02971/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02971-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

EDWARD THOMAS KENNEDY,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATELCO CREDIT UNION,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-02971-TSH 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND SCREENING 

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(E)

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff Edward Thomas Kennedy filed a Complaint against Patelco 

Credit Union and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Compl., ECF No. 1; Appl., ECF 

No. 3. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the in forma pauperis application and finds 

the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e). Kennedy must file a first amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies identified in 

this screening order by July 8, 2019; otherwise, the Court will recommend dismissal of Kennedy’s

complaint without prejudice. 

II. BACKGROUND

Kennedy, domiciled in Reading, Pennsylvania, brings this suit for negligence against 

Patelco, which has its principal place of business in Pleasanton, California. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2. 

According to Kennedy, he electronically deposited his paychecks from his employer and “other 

deposits redeemed in lawful money pursuant to 12 U.S. Code. §411” from January of 1985 to 

December of 1993 into his checking and savings accounts at Patelco. Id. ¶ 4. He alleges that as “a 

result of the Negligence of the Defendant, Plaintiff was injured by the Defendant in loss of rights 

Case 3:19-cv-02971-TSH Document 5 Filed 06/06/19 Page 1 of 5
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

and lawful money.” Id. ¶ 5. The matter in controversy is $440,100.00. Id. ¶ 4. 

III. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION

A district court may authorize the start of a civil action in forma pauperis if the court is 

satisfied the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filling fees required to pursue the lawsuit. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Kennedy submitted the required documentation demonstrating an 

inability to pay the costs of this action, and it is evident from the application that Kennedy’s assets 

and income are insufficient to enable payment of the fees. See Appl. Accordingly, the Court 

GRANTS Kennedy’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 

IV. SUA SPONTE SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)

A. Legal Standard

While the Court has granted Kennedy’s in forma pauperis application, it must also review 

his complaint to determine whether the action may be allowed to proceed. The Court must 

dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or 

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B). To make this determination, courts assess whether there is a factual and legal basis 

for the asserted wrong, “however inartfully pleaded.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-

28 (9th Cir. 1984) (quotation omitted). Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held 

that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was 

made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other 

facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Unless it is clear that no amendment 

can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to 

notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th 

Cir. 1987). 

B. Analysis

Rule 8

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the complaint set forth a 

“short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(d)(1) 

Case 3:19-cv-02971-TSH Document 5 Filed 06/06/19 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

requires that each allegation in a pleading be “simple, concise, and direct.” See McHenry v. 

Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that was 

“argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”). In addition, the 

complaint must include facts which are “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

554, 555 (2007). For instance, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court rejected conclusory 

assertions that “petitioners ‘knew of, condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject 

[him]’ to harsh conditions of confinement ‘as a matter of policy, solely on the account of [his] 

religion, race, and/or national origin and for no legitimate penological interest.’” 556 U.S. 662, 

680 (2009). The Court reasoned that such allegations were akin to the “formulaic recitation of the 

elements” dismissed in Twombly, and therefore, insufficient to meet Rule 8(a). Id. In doing so, 

the Court explained, “[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.” Id. at 678. The failure to comply with Rule 8 is a basis for dismissal that is not 

dependent on whether the complaint is without merit. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th 

Cir. 1996). Accordingly, even claims which are not on their face subject to dismissal under Rule 

12(b)(6) may still be dismissed for violating Rule 8(a). Id.

Kennedy’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8 because it does not set forth a short and 

plain statement of his claim showing he is entitled to relief. Specifically, the complaint fails to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it does not adequately describe the 

negligence claim Kennedy seeks to bring against Patelco. Furthermore, it does not clearly connect 

this claim with facts giving rise to it. In order to comply with Rule 8’s pleading requirement, 

Kennedy must amend the complaint to state as clearly as possible the facts giving rise to the 

complaint. He must also explain why Patelco is being sued by making specific factual allegations 

that connect Patelco with the alleged wrongdoing.

Accordingly, the Court finds dismissal appropriate because the complaint fails to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. However, given Kennedy’s pro se status and because it is 

not clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment, the Court shall 

Case 3:19-cv-02971-TSH Document 5 Filed 06/06/19 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

grant him the opportunity to file an amended complaint. To comply with Rule 8’s pleading 

requirement, Kennedy’s amended complaint must allege all the facts upon which he bases this 

claim. 

Statute of Limitations

Although it is unclear what the basis of Kennedy’s negligence claim is, it may be timebarred. The deposits occurred from 1985 to 1993, at least sixteen years ago. This may pose a 

problem for Kennedy unless the alleged misconduct occurred long after his last deposit to Patelco. 

Although a plaintiff generally has no duty to plead around an affirmative defense, when a valid 

affirmative defense is evident from the face of the complaint, it may be subject to dismissal. 

Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892, 902 (9th Cir. 2013) (“When an affirmative 

defense is obvious on the face of a complaint . . . a defendant can raise that defense in a motion to 

dismiss.”); see also Clifton v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publ’g Co., 152 F. Supp. 3d 1221, 1225 

(N.D. Cal. 2015) (same).

Generally, a federal court sitting in diversity applies the applicable statute of limitations of 

the jurisdiction in which the court sits. Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 109–10

(1945). Section 339(1) of the California Code of Civil Procedure provides a two-year limitations 

period for negligence actions, section 338(d) provides a three-year limitations period for actions 

based on fraud or mistake, and section 343, the “catch-all” statute, provides a four-year limitations 

period for actions not otherwise specifically provided for. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 

339(1), 338(d), 343. It is unclear from the complaint which of these might apply but when filing 

his complaint Kennedy would be well served to make sure that his factual allegations are not time 

barred. Accordingly, if there are any recent events giving rise to Kennedy’s claims, he should 

allege those in his amended complaint. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Kennedy’s Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis and finds that the complaint fails to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 

Kennedy must file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies in this order by July 8, 2019. 

If he does not file a timely an amended complaint, the Court will recommend this action be 

Case 3:19-cv-02971-TSH Document 5 Filed 06/06/19 Page 4 of 5
5

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

dismissed.

Kennedy may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center, a free service offered by 

the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco, by calling 415-782-8982, 

or by signing up for an appointment on the15th Floor of the Federal Courthouse in San Francisco, 

450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. There is also a Legal Help Center in 

Oakland, located on the 4th Floor, Room 470S, of the United States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, 

Oakland. At the Legal Help Center, you will be able to speak with an attorney who may be able to 

provide basic legal help but not representation. More information is available at 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. 

Kennedy may also wish to obtain a copy of the district court’s Handbook for Litigants 

Without a Lawyer. It provides instructions on how to proceed at every stage of your case, 

including discovery, motions, and trial. The handbook is available in person at the Clerk’s Office 

and online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2019

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02971-TSH Document 5 Filed 06/06/19 Page 5 of 5