Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00091/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00091-0/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

1 Plaintiff Romayor’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis includes some

incomplete responses. Specifically, he has responded to queries seeking the amount of gross and net

salary he receives, the amount of federal or state welfare payments, Social Security or other government

source he receives, and the amount of his monthly expenses with “I’m not sure.” 

2 This court is ordering reassignment to a District Court Judge because, absent consent of

all parties, a Magistrate Judge does not have authority to make case-dispositive rulings. See, e.g.,

Tripati v. Rison, 847 F. 2d 548 (9th Cir. 1988).

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOHN A. ROMAYOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEBORAH HOLLAND, EXECUTIVE

VICE PRESIDENT AT PUBLISHERS

CLEARINGHOUSE,

Defendant. ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 10-00091 PVT

ORDER TO REASSIGN CASE;

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THAT CASE BE DISMISSED WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

[Docket Nos. 1 and 2]

On January 7, 2010, plaintiff John Romayor proceeding pro se filed a complaint and an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

1

 Based on the Application and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case be reassigned to a District Court Judge with the

recommendation that the case be dismissed with leave to amend.2 A federal court must dismiss an in

forma pauperis complaint if the complaint is: (1) frivolous; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief

Case 5:10-cv-00091-JF Document 4 Filed 01/21/10 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

ORDER, page 2

may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 

See, 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2); see also, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).

In the present case, plaintiff Romayor states that his claim is based, inter alia, on fraud. See,

Civil Cover Sheet. (Other Fraud). Rule 9(b) requires that a claim alleging fraud must be plead with

particularity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). In sum, plaintiff Romayor alleges that in or around September

2005, defendant Publishers Clearing House promised to award him $1 million. Because he was not

living at the address where the correspondence was mailed to at the time, plaintiff Romayor states

that he was not there to receive the award money from the Prize Patrol. Based on the attached

correspondence, it appears plaintiff Romayor’s past efforts to claim the award money have been

unsuccessful. Plaintiff Romayor has also attached various documents from defendant Publishers

Clearing House to support his complaint. Notwithstanding the above, plaintiff Romayor has not

plead his fraud claim with particularity. Therefore, plaintiff Romayor has failed to state a claim on

which relief may be granted. 

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

“[L]eave [to amend] shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

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

se. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9, 101 S.Ct. 173, 176 (1980). Accordingly, this court recommends

that the district court dismiss the complaint with leave to amend and further recommends that

plaintiff Romayor be ordered to complete the court’s own Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2010

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:10-cv-00091-JF Document 4 Filed 01/21/10 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

ORDER, page 3

Case 5:10-cv-00091-JF Document 4 Filed 01/21/10 Page 3 of 3