Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01059/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01059-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Property Damage

---

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

GARRY L. MCCUE,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-1059-BAS(MDD)

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

FOR FAILING TO STATE A

CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

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

v.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A.,

INC.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Garry L. McCue, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint

for several alleged injuries arising from an odor emanating from his 2008 Toyota

Camry. This action is brought against Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. 

The Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but

dismissed his complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a claim under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On June 25,

2015, Plaintiff timely filed his amended complaint. 

For the following reasons, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the

action in its entirety for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

- 1 - 15cv1059

Case 3:15-cv-01059-BAS-MDD Document 8 Filed 06/25/15 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

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

“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 the two-page handwritten amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges several

different physical ailments from the earlier complaint—including asthma, pacemaker

syndrome, headache, coughing, and chest pain —which all appear to be connected to 1

an odor emanating from the dashboard of his 2008 Toyota Camry. The Court

Plaintiff previously alleged that he suffered from glaucoma, a “heart condition,” bowel 1

obstructions, and depression as a result of the dashboard odor. It is unclear what prompted the drastic

change in alleged injuries.

- 2 - 15cv1059

Case 3:15-cv-01059-BAS-MDD Document 8 Filed 06/25/15 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

previously stated that it was unclear exactly what the claim or claims asserted against

Defendant were. That has not changed. The first page of the amended complaint does

not assert any legal claim for relief. And the second page has a list. That list mentions

court documents, statutes, and letters, but nothing that adequately describes a legal

claim for relief. Once again, the complaint is so incomprehensible that the Court is

unable to determine what claim is asserted and whether Plaintiff states a cognizable

claim for relief. Moreover, the amended complaint does not contain a short and plain

statement as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See Cervantes v. Countrywide

Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.2011) (“[A] district court may dismiss

without leave where . . . amendment would be futile.”); 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 25, 2015

Hon. Cynthia Bashant

United States District Judge

- 3 - 15cv1059

Case 3:15-cv-01059-BAS-MDD Document 8 Filed 06/25/15 Page 3 of 3