Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03519/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03519-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Office of the Chief Counsel
Defendant
Daniel Rodriguez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DANIEL RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL- INS,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

No. C-07-3519 JCS

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND [Docket No. 3]

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“the

Application”). Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

Application and dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to sua sponte dismiss an in forma

pauperis complaint when it is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). Where a plaintiff is proceeding in pro se, the

court must construe the complaint liberally. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F. 2d

621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Nonetheless, the complaint must be sufficient to place defendants on notice

of the nature of the claims asserted against them. McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 

1991). 

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or provide the defendant adequate notice of the wrong alleged. 

The documents that make up Plaintiff’s complaint refer to a variety of wrongful acts, including a

reference to “INS mental mistreatment.” There is a demand for “INS documentation” and a oneCase 3:07-cv-03519-JCS Document 7 Filed 08/06/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

page excerpt from a removal proceeding. Plaintiff has not identified any particular statute in his

complaint, however, and there is no clear statement of the wrong the named defendant is alleged to

have committed against Plaintiff.

The Application is DENIED and Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

Plaintiff shall be given thirty (30) days from the date of this order in which to amend his complaint. 

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff shall identify each claim clearly and legibly and state the

specific facts supporting each claim. If Plaintiff in his amended complaint states a claim upon which

relief may be granted, the Court will reconsider its denial of Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in 

forma pauperis. The Clerk is directed to close the file in this case if an amended complaint is not

filed within thirty days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 6, 2007

 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03519-JCS Document 7 Filed 08/06/07 Page 2 of 2