Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00113/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00113-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK MARC COOLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-0113 JAM CKD PS

ORDER AND 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff, as the purported administrator of the estate of Frederick Grant Cooley, is

proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis.

1

The federal in forma pauperis statute 

authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. 

 

1

The District Court granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis by minute order 

entered January 20, 2016. ECF No. 4.

Case 2:16-cv-00113-JAM-CKD Document 7 Filed 01/25/16 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

2

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “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.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 

at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

The complaint does not allege a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. The federal courts 

are courts of limited jurisdiction. In the absence of a basis for federal jurisdiction, plaintiff’s 

claims cannot proceed in this venue. Because there is no basis for federal subject matter 

jurisdiction evident in the complaint, plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why this action 

should not be dismissed. Failure to allege a proper basis for subject matter jurisdiction will result 

in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

Plaintiff alleges this action is brought on behalf of the estate of Frederick Grant Cooley. 

Plaintiff asserts that he was granted probate letters of administration on July 17, 2015 by the 

Solano County Superior Court. Plaintiff will be directed to submit the letters of administration to 

this court for review of the propriety of plaintiff’s claim of the right to bring this action.

Plaintiff is prosecuting this case in propria persona on behalf of an estate. Plaintiff, 

however, also alleges within the complaint that the heirs of the Estate of Essex Cook have a claim 

against the Estate of Frederick Grant Cooley. As such, plaintiff may not proceed in this action 

pro se and must obtain counsel in order to prosecute this action. See Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 

F.3d 391, 393 (2nd Cir. 1997); see also Jones v. Corr. Med. Servs., 401 F.3d 950, 951-52 

/////

Case 2:16-cv-00113-JAM-CKD Document 7 Filed 01/25/16 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

3

(8th Cir. 2005) (non-attorney administrator of decedent’s estate may not proceed pro se on behalf 

of estate).

Plaintiff alleges fraud on the part of defendants arising out of a reverse mortgage entered 

into by Frederick Grant Cooley in 2005. Any claim on behalf of the estate would be long time 

barred under the applicable statute of limitations. Although plaintiff asserts that he did not 

personally learn of the fraud until July 17, 2015, plaintiff does not explain why his lack of 

knowledge can be attributed to Frederick Grant Cooley, for whose estate the present action is 

brought.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than February 11, 2016, plaintiff 

shall:

1. Show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction;

2. Submit the probate letters of administration issued by the Solano County Superior 

Court; 

3. Obtain counsel; and

4. Show cause why this action is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that the action be 

dismissed.

Dated: January 25, 2016

4 cooley0113.osc.nosmj.adm

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00113-JAM-CKD Document 7 Filed 01/25/16 Page 3 of 3