Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00151/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00151-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Lewis Bobo
Plaintiff
Countrywide Home Loans
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES LEWIS BOBO,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, 

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:16-cv-00151-DAD-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH 

PREJUDICE

Objections Due: 28 Days

(Doc. 6)

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 2, 2016, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint

against Countrywide Home Loans. (“Defendant”). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed 

without prejudice, and on March 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (Docs. 3; 4.) 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was also dismissed without prejudice, and on April 20, 2016, 

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (Docs. 5; 6.) For the reasons set forth below, 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s single-page amended complaint is entirely devoid of any factual allegations. In 

the caption of the complaint, it appears Plaintiff has named Countrywide Home Loans as 

defendant, and added within the body of the amended complaint CTC Real Estate Services, FRA 

CTC Foreclosure Services Corporation, and Phil Franey, the Kern County Treasurer and Tax 

Case 1:16-cv-00151-DAD-SKO Document 7 Filed 04/27/16 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

2

Collector as defendants (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc. 6.) Other than identifying these 

entities and Mr. Franey, Plaintiff has provided the following information: 

T.S. No 99-09614 Loan No 5008170 Title order No 432823 Trustee in compliance 

with said notices of Trustee’s sale and in exercise of its power under said deed of 

trust sold said real property at public auction on 4/10/2000

Assessor tax number 516-053-07-00-7

Tax rate area 601-387

Tax bill number # 99-1349490-00-0

This amount due Nov 1, 1999 599.90-659-84

(SAC, p. 1.) There is no description of the relevance of this information and no factual allegations 

identifying Plaintiff’s claim or in what unlawful conduct Defendants have engaged. 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Screening Standard

In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen 

each case, and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of 

poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a 

claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be 

cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading 

standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must 

contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed 

factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 

accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 

true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

557). “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that is ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . 

Case 1:16-cv-00151-DAD-SKO Document 7 Filed 04/27/16 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

3

‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained 

in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Id. “Threadbare 

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not 

suffice.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to 

less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520 (1972).

B. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint Should Be Dismissed without Leave to Amend

Plaintiff’s amended complaint again fails to state a cognizable claim against Defendants. It 

is not clear what harm Defendants have caused Plaintiff or how Plaintiff is entitled to redress 

under the law. Absent factual allegations setting forth conduct that is contrary to law on the part 

of Defendants which entitles Plaintiff to relief, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state 

a claim. Plaintiff was cautioned in this Court’s April 7, 2016, order that he would “be given one 

final opportunity to set forth facts that explains the nature of his suit against Defendants and 

state[ ] a cognizable claim for which relief can be granted.” (Doc. 5, p. 3.) 

Plaintiff has had three opportunities to state a cognizable claim, and has proven unable to 

marshal facts sufficient to constitute a cognizable federal claim. “Complaints that are filed in 

repeated and knowing violation of Federal Rule 8’s pleading requirements are a great drain on the 

court system, and the reviewing court cannot be expected to ‘fish a gold coin from a bucket of 

mud.’” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 57 (2014) 

(quoting U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed–Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003)). 

Regardless of whether there may be merit to Plaintiff’s actual claim -- whatever it may be --

Plaintiff has demonstrated that an additional opportunity to amend his complaint would be futile. 

See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (“The propriety of dismissal for failure 

to comply with [Fed. R. Civ. P. 8] does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly without 

merit”).

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed with prejudice and without 

leave to amend. 

Case 1:16-cv-00151-DAD-SKO Document 7 Filed 04/27/16 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

4

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED 

with prejudice and without leave to amend. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within twentyeight (28) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these 

findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 

district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. See, e.g., Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00151-DAD-SKO Document 7 Filed 04/27/16 Page 4 of 4