Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02177/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02177-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Auto Lucky Shop
Defendant
Quoc H. Nguyen
Plaintiff
Cuong Phan
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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

QUOC H. NGUYEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CUONG PHAN, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:24-cv-02177-TLN-SCR 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. This matter was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”). However, the application is largely incomplete and does not provide the 

information necessary for the Court to make a determination. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

Accordingly, the Court will defer ruling on the motion to proceed IFP and direct Plaintiff to 

provide a complete application. For the reasons provided below, the Court also finds Plaintiff’s 

complaint is legally deficient but will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. 

I. SCREENING 

 A. Legal Standard 

The federal IFP statute requires 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). In 

Case 2:24-cv-02177-DC-SCR Document 5 Filed 12/19/24 Page 1 of 5
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 

reviewing the complaint, the Court is guided by the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rulespolicies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 

plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 

court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 

to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 

sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 

the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 

Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 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). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 

court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 

are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 

Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 

denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 

The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 

states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 

must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 

less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 

(1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 

inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 

624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 

to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

Case 2:24-cv-02177-DC-SCR Document 5 Filed 12/19/24 Page 2 of 5
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 

 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 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, 556 U.S. at 

678.  A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 

to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Akhtar v. 

Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1213 (9th Cir. 2012). 

B. The Complaint 

 The caption page of the Complaint lists Cuong Phan as the sole defendant, but the body of 

the Complaint lists three additional defendants—Auto Lucky Shop, Phuong, and Thuc Nguyen. 

ECF No. 1 at 1-3. The complaint asserts no basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. Id. at 3. On the 

Complaint form, Plaintiff left the “Basis for Jurisdiction,” “Statement of Claim,” and “Relief” 

sections entirely blank. Id. at 3-6. The cover sheet attached to the Complaint describes the basis 

for the case: “He want my life end because my parent owned.” ECF No. 1-1 at 1. No other 

information is contained in the Complaint or the cover sheet. 

C. Analysis 

 As an initial matter, recently, a “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal” was filed in this case. 

ECF No. 4. The docket indicates it was filed by Plaintiff but the document itself indicates that 

someone by the name of Ricky Nguyen is seeking dismissal of Phan Cuong. Id. Because it’s 

unclear that Plaintiff is seeking voluntary dismissal of one of the defendants in this case, the 

Court will not construe the document docketed as ECF No. 4 as a notice of voluntary dismissal 

under Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

With respect to the Complaint, the Court finds that it does not comply with Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1)-(2) because it does not contain a “short and plain” statement setting 

forth the grounds for federal jurisdiction, or a short and plain statement showing plaintiff’s 

entitlement to relief. The nature of Plaintiff’s claim is unclear from the Complaint. As currently 

pled, the Complaint appears to have no arguable basis either in law or in fact and is thus 

frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

Case 2:24-cv-02177-DC-SCR Document 5 Filed 12/19/24 Page 3 of 5
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 

When a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, as is the case here, the pro se litigant should be 

given leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies cannot be cured by 

amendment. Akhtar, 698 F.3d at 1212. Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is so lacking in factual detail, 

that the Court cannot determine what it is attempting to allege or whether amendment would be 

futile. Therefore, rather than recommending dismissal of the action, the undersigned will provide 

Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to allege a proper basis for jurisdiction and facts 

supporting a cognizable cause of action. 

II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 

 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must: name all the 

parties in the caption, allege facts establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction, contain a short 

and plain statement of plaintiff’s claims, and set forth the allegations in sequentially numbered 

paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each paragraph 

having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the complaint. 

Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where possible. Rule 10(b). 

As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. 

They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 

95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is 

being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 

facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 

complaint should contain specific allegations as to the actions of each named defendant. 

 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s 

amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 

reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline 

Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint 

supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & 

Case 2:24-cv-02177-DC-SCR Document 5 Filed 12/19/24 Page 4 of 5
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 

Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff shall file a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis 

within 30 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff shall complete all portions of the application 

with enough detail for the court to determine whether Plaintiff is eligible to proceed in forma 

pauperis. Additionally, if the answer to a question is zero or not applicable, Plaintiff shall so 

indicate rather than leaving the form blank. 

2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this Order to file an amended 

complaint that addresses the defects set forth above. The amended complaint must include a 

sufficient jurisdictional statement and comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

including Rule 8. The amended complaint must bear the case number assigned this case and must 

be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” 

3. Failure to file a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis and 

amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this case be 

dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

4. Alternatively, if Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action Plaintiff may file a 

notice of voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 19, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-02177-DC-SCR Document 5 Filed 12/19/24 Page 5 of 5