Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00290/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00290-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331bc Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID JON MARTIN (TRUST),

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-290-BAS(DHB)

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITHOUT

PREJUDICE FOR FAILING TO

STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH

RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 

v.

VA REGIONAL SAN DIEGO

BENEFIT OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff David Jon Martin (Trust), a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a

complaint for “immediate payment and . . damages . . . for years of hardship, Breach

of Covenant, and civil right [sic] violations, by Veteran Affairsits agencies, agents and

contractors.” Plaintiff also concurrently filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis(“IFP”) and a motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) The former

motion was granted, and the latter denied. (ECF No. 4.)

I. SUA SPONTE SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed

by any person proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject

to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is

- 1 - 15cv290

Case 3:15-cv-00290-BAS-DHB Document 11 Filed 03/27/15 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

“frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Prior to its amendment by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the former 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte dismissal of only frivolous and malicious

claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. Section 1915(e)(2), however, mandates that the court

reviewing a complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on

its own motion to dismiss before directing that the complaint be served by the U.S.

Marshal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). Lopez, 203 F.3d 1127

(“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma

pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152

F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting the “the language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). As currently

pleaded, it appears as though Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because it fails to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted.

In a two-page handwritten complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he “has made past

claims for pension and service-connection, but all have been denied by Veteran

Affairs” despite the existence of a contract that is “‘more than an employment

agreement,’ impl[ying] a higher contract, one ofsacrifice, or‘shedding of blood’ found

in ‘law of nations[.]’” (Compl. 1.) He ends his complaint requesting “immediate

payment and that damages be assessed for years of hardship, Breach of Covenant, and

civil right [sic] violations, by Veteran Affairs[,] its agencies, agents and contractors.” 

(Id. at 2.)

To the extent that a liberal construction of Plaintiff’s complaint indicatesthat he

seeks to recover damages for civil-rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff

- 2 - 15cv290

Case 3:15-cv-00290-BAS-DHB Document 11 Filed 03/27/15 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

fails to allege facts to sustain a cognizable claim. Section 1983 “is not itself a source

of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights

elsewhere conferred.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (internal

citations omitted); Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). It imposes

two essential pleading requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person acting under

color ofstate law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived the

claimant ofsome right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of

the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981),

overruled on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986); see

Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 150, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). 

Plaintiff fails to allege any facts from which this Court could even liberally

construe a claim for violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. In fact, no specific

constitutional right is even mentioned anywhere in the complaint or its accompanying

document. 

Similarly, Plaintiff failsto allege any facts from which this Court could liberally

construe a claim for breach of covenant, which this Court interprets to mean a claim

for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Every contract contains an

implied-in-law covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Foley v. Interactive Data

Corp., 47 Cal. 3d 654, 683-84 (1988). “[T]he burden imposed is that neither party will

do anything which will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the

agreement. Or, to put it another way, the implied covenant imposes upon each party

the obligation to do everything that the contract presupposes they will do to accomplish

its purpose.” Careau &Co. v. Sec. Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc., 222 Cal. App. 3d 1371, 1393

(1990)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “The precise nature and extent

of the duty imposed by such an implied promise will depend on the contractual

purposes.” Egan v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 24 Cal. 3d 809, 818 (1979). There are

simply no facts provided that present a plausible claim for a breach of the covenant of

good faith and fair dealing.

- 3 - 15cv290

Case 3:15-cv-00290-BAS-DHB Document 11 Filed 03/27/15 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

From the Court’s independent research, it was unable to identify any claim that

could be liberally construed for “years of hardship.”

While the Court must construe his pro se pleadings liberally, it may not “supply

elements of [a] claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,

278 (9th Cir. 1982). Here, even upon liberally construing his complaint, Plaintiff fails

to provide the necessary facts to sustain a plausible claim for a civil-rights claim or a

claim for the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff’s complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). If Plaintiff still wishes to continue to

proceed with this matter, he must SUBMIT AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WHICH

ADDRESSES ALL THE DEFICIENCIES OF PLEADING SET FORTH ABOVE no

later than April 27, 2015. If Plaintiff’s amended complaint still fails to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted, it will be dismissed with prejudice and without any

further leave to amend. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996)

(holding that court may dismiss action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b) if Plaintiff fails to comply with previous court order regarding amendment).

The Court also DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion for an

order directing the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint on the

defendants because the motion is premature at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 26, 2015

Hon. Cynthia Bashant

United States District Judge

- 4 - 15cv290

Case 3:15-cv-00290-BAS-DHB Document 11 Filed 03/27/15 Page 4 of 4