Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00788/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00788-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SASHA GIVERTS, et al., 

Plaintiffs, No. C 10-0788 PJH

v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

AND DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED

BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING CO., IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Defendant.

_______________________________/

The court has received plaintiff’s complaint and application to proceed in forma

pauperis, both filed in this court on February 24, 2010. Because there is no legal basis for

plaintiff's complaint, the court denies plaintiff’s application and dismisses the complaint sua

sponte.

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." In reviewing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Jackson v. Arizona,

885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a frivolous claim is

one that lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989). Dismissal on these grounds are often made sua

sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the

inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints. Id., 490 U.S. at 324, 109 S. Ct.

at 1831. Where a litigant is acting pro se and the court finds the litigant's complaint

Case 4:10-cv-00788-PJH Document 7 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must give the litigant

notice of the deficiencies of the complaint and an opportunity to amend before final

dismissal, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be

cured by amendment. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Eldridge v.

Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135-37 (9th Cir. 1987).

Plaintiffs’ complaint spans a single handwritten page, and generally alleges that

defendant’s predecessor, Countrywide Bank, FSB, issued a mortgage loan to plaintiffs in

2007, with insufficient information about the loan being provided to plaintiffs at the time. 

See Complaint. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that “nobody” explained to plaintiffs that they

were “not qualified for so big loan [sic]” and furthermore, that the bank did not provide “all

information about the loan at that time.” See id. To that end, plaintiffs allege that the bank

is “responsible for all the money [plaintiffs] lost” in trying to pay off their mortgage for the

past three years. Id. 

Although clear that plaintiffs protest the bank’s role in issuing them a mortgage loan

in 2007, it is impossible to discern from plaintiffs’ complaint the actual legal theories under

which plaintiffs seek relief. Plaintiffs allege no detailed facts in support of their complaint,

state no basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and fail to identify any recognizable

causes of action. Accordingly, the court finds plaintiffs’ complaint frivolous within the

meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED. 

Although the court is of the opinion that repleading will not resolve the deficiencies in

the complaint, the court will nonetheless allow plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended

complaint. For that amended complaint to be successful, plaintiffs must identify each

defendant by official name and location, must allege separate causes of action, must state

a constitutional or statutory basis for each cause of action, and must allege facts showing

each defendant’s personal involvement in the wrongful act alleged in each cause of action.

Any amended complaint must be filed no later than March 29, 2010.

If plaintiffs fail to file the amended complaint by March 29, 2010, or if they file an

Case 4:10-cv-00788-PJH Document 7 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

amended complaint not in accordance with the above instructions, the case will be

dismissed with prejudice. 

Because the court orders dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, plaintiffs’ request

to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00788-PJH Document 7 Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 3