Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-02126/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-02126-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City and County of San Francisco Auto Return
Defendant
Malinka Moye
Plaintiff

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

MALINKA MOYE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO AUTO RETURN,

Defendant. 

No. C 08-02126 SBA

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 3-4]

REQUEST BEFORE THE COURT

Before the Court is pro per plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (the

“Application”) [Docket No. 3] and his MOTION to Relate Cases [Docket No. 4]. For the reasons

discussed below, the Court DENIES without prejudice the Application and the Motion.

BACKGROUND

On April 24, 2008, plaintiff pro per sued defendant City and County of San Francisco Auto

Return. See Docket No. 1. Plaintiff’s complaint simply states, “[i]ntentional violation of plaintiff

[sic] civil rights. Prevention of Equal Access to Justice Act. Car stolen. RICO Act.” See id. at 2. 

In his Complaint, plaintiff provided no other allegations to support these claims. The same day he

filed his Complaint, he filed his Application.

In addition, on this same day, he filed his Motion. The Motion states at an unspecified date,

plaintiff:

will & hereby does move court for judgement. Attorney General to file criminal

charges. Against each. Employee. Under employment of City and county of San

Francisco. Who aided in false imprisonment of Plaintiff. Unsuccessful murder

attempt upon Plaintiff. Employees of Auto-Return who illegally impounded

plaintff’s [sic] vehicle and may have sold. ILLEGALLY. People who aided in

ILLEGALL [sic] sale of plainitff’s [sic] families residence. TWICE.

Motion at 1:21-27.

Case 4:08-cv-02126-SBA Document 6 Filed 04/30/08 Page 1 of 6
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

It continues:

This motion is brought on the following grounds. Employees under City and

County of San Francisco obstructed justice. Office of the District Attorney falsely

imprisoned plaintiff numerous times. Allowed plaintiff’s attempted murder attackers

to flee jurisdiction without charge. Allowed attempted murder attackers [sic] to sale

[sic] plaintiff’s famly [sic] home ilegally [sic]. With full knowledge prior to sale. 

Office of the District Attorney. Allowed plaintiff [sic] son to be physically abused

with prosecution. Office of the District Attorney allowed an illegal transfer of

plaintff’s [sic] other family residence, without prosecution. Office of the District

attorney. Set plaintiff up for false drug possession charge MALICIOUS

PROSECUTION. Auto-return false impounded plaintiffs vehicle & may have

possible made an intentional ILLEGAL VEHICLE TRANSACTION. Violating civil

rights act. RICO ACT. EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT.

Motion at 2:5-13.

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Demonstrating In Forma Pauperis Status

The benefit of proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Franklin v. Murphy,

745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984). As 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) states, in part: 

Any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or

defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without

prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that

includes a statement of all assets such person possesses that the person is unable to

pay such fees or give security therefor.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

A petitioner need not “be absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefit of this statute.” Adkins v.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948); Jefferson v. U.S., 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th

Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 896 (1960). An affidavit is sufficient if it states a person cannot

pay or provide security for court costs and still provide himself or herself and any dependents with

Case 4:08-cv-02126-SBA Document 6 Filed 04/30/08 Page 2 of 6
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

the necessities of life. Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339.

II. Claims Review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 also authorizes a district court to dismiss a claim filed in forma

pauperis “at any time” if it determines: (1) the allegation of poverty is untrue; (2) the action is

frivolous or malicious; (3) the action fails to state a claim; or (4) the action seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pro se pleadings

must be liberally construed. Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

When reviewing a complaint, however, a court does not accept as true unreasonable inferences or

conclusory legal allegations cast in the form of factual allegations. See W. Mining Council v. Watt,

643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981); Miranda v. Clark County, Nev., 279 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir.

2002) (“conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will not defeat a motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim”); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir.

2001); McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 1988) (“conclusory allegations

without more are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim”). Leave to

amend is properly denied “where the amendment would be futile.” DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys.,

957 F.2d 655, 659 (9th Cir. 1992). But if a plaintiff’s complaint is found deficient and an

amendment could possibly cure the deficiency, the complaint must be dismissed with leave to

amend. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135-37 (9th Cir. 1987).

ANALYSIS

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s Complaint, in conjunction with his Motion, and find they

do not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). While Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 8 only requires, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief[,]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics

Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d

668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001), a party must “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957), abrogated on other

grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, __ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007); Yamaguchi v. U.S.

Dep’t of the Air Force, 109 F.3d 1475, 1481 (9th Cir. 1997) (a complaint must sufficiently establish

Case 4:08-cv-02126-SBA Document 6 Filed 04/30/08 Page 3 of 6
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

a basis for judgment). Here, plaintiff has failed to provide any notice to defendant as to what are the

bases for his claims.

Further, to the extent plaintiff’s RICO claims turn on allegations of fraud, plaintiff must meet

the higher pleading standards of “particularity,” imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); Desaigoudar v. Meyercord, 223 F.3d 1020, 1022-23 (9th Cir. 2000); see

Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541, 553-54 (9th Cir. 2007). Because, however, plaintiff may be

able to cure his pleading defects by amendment, the Court will grant him 30 days leave to amend. 

Even if plaintiff had stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, however, the Court

could not grant his Application. The Court notes it is difficult to read and illogical. See Docket

No. 3. Plaintiff alleged he has a monthly income of $750,000 per month, no expenses, yet receives

Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) from the Social Security Administration. See id. The Court

could not approve such an Application. Because, however, plaintiff may be able to cure these defect

by amendment, the Court will grant plaintiff 30 days leave to amend.

If, however, plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint and a new Application, within

30 days of the date of this Order, the Court will dismiss this matter without prejudice, for

failure to prosecute.

With regards to plaintiffs’ Motion, plaintiff did not request the Court to relate any cases. The

Court thus denies it without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES without prejudice plaintiff’s Application to

Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Docket No. 3]. Likewise, the Court DISMISSES plaintiff’s Complaint

[Docket No. 1]. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this Order to filed an Amended Complaint

and file a new Application. If, however, plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint and a new

Application, within 30 days of the date of this Order, the Court will dismiss this matter

///

///

///

///

Case 4:08-cv-02126-SBA Document 6 Filed 04/30/08 Page 4 of 6
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

5

without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. Lastly, the Court DENIES without prejudice

plaintiff’s Motion to Relate Cases. [Docket No. 4].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 30, 2008 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-02126-SBA Document 6 Filed 04/30/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALINKA MOYE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et

al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV08-02126 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on April 30, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Malinka Moye

40. 42. Parsons Street

San Francisco, CA 94118

Dated: April 30, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:08-cv-02126-SBA Document 6 Filed 04/30/08 Page 6 of 6