Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03554/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03554-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 12:3410 Right to Financial Privacy Act

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENDA C. ARMSTEAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

HSBC CARD SERVICES,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C08-3554 SI (BZ)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff Brenda C. Armstead has applied to proceed with

her complaint in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section

1915(a). She has also moved for “a hearing immediate per Rule

5 Federal Law.” However, Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure governs the procedure for serving and filing

pleadings. As plaintiff has declined magistrate judge

jurisdiction, the following is a report and recommendation on

plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Under section 1915(e)(2), a court must dismiss an in

forma pauperis application which, liberally construed, fails

to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28

U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B); Marks v. Slocum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th

Case 3:08-cv-03554-SI Document 10 Filed 08/12/08 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

Cir. 1996)(per curiam).

After reviewing the application and complaint, I find

that plaintiff does not sufficiently state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. To file suit in federal court, a

plaintiff must invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court. 

Generally, this means that filing a case that involves a

question of federal law, or in which the parties are from

different states and the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a). Here, it is not

clear what, if any, federal claim plaintiff is alleging or

whether there is any reason for this case to be in federal

court. In her complaint, in which she refers to herself as a

“representative,” plaintiff merely states, “HSBC is adding

charges that is not the plaintiff’s fault” [sic] and as a

result, “plaintiffs account has been turned over” to a

collections agency. Plaintiff does not explain why she filed

in federal court, whether she thinks a federal law has been

violated or what the amount of her damages is. 

 Because I find that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted, I recommend that

plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied

and her complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. If

plaintiff desires to proceed with this lawsuit, I recommend

that she should amend her complaint by September 15, 2008 to

demonstrate that she is legally entitled to relief against

defendant in federal court. The amended complaint should be a

short, legible statement in plain English that clearly states

the facts that form the basis for her suit against the

Case 3:08-cv-03554-SI Document 10 Filed 08/12/08 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

defendant. The amended complaint should at least explain: (1)

whether these are Armstead’s claims or she is trying to

represent someone; (2) what defendant did to plaintiff; (3)

what law she thinks was violated; (4) why she filed in federal

court and why she thinks the court has jurisdiction over this

action; and (5) what relief she wants under Rule 5. 

Furthermore, the first page should set forth the telephone

number of the party presenting the paper for filing. N.D.

Cal. Civ. R. 3-4(a)(1). In amending her complaint, plaintiff

may wish to consult a manual the court has adopted to assist

pro se litigants in presenting their case. This manual is

available in the Clerk’s Office and online at

www.cand.uscourts.gov. If plaintiff's amended complaint does

not do these things satisfactorily, I recommend that the

complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section

1915(e)(2)(B). 

Dated: August 12, 2008

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\ARMSTEAD V HSBC\ARMSTEAD DENY IFP II.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-03554-SI Document 10 Filed 08/12/08 Page 3 of 3