Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02092/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02092-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Said Majlessi
Plaintiff
PSCC Insurance Solutions
Defendant
Public Storage Co.
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAID MAJLESSI,

Plaintiff,

v.

PUBLIC STORAGE CO., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02092-KAW 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL; DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2, 3

Pro se plaintiff Said Majlessi commenced the above-captioned case on May 8, 2015. 

(Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) He also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion to 

appoint counsel. (IFP App., Dkt. No. 2; Mot. Appoint Counsel, Dkt. No. 3.)

I. IFP Application

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and finds that 

Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff's application to 

proceed in forma pauperis is, therefore, GRANTED. 

II. Motion to Appoint Counsel

Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel, however, is DENIED. In general, there is no right to 

appointed counsel in a civil action. See United States v. McQuade, 579 F.2d 1180, 1181 (9th Cir.

1978). But the court, in its discretion, may appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) if it 

finds that there are "exceptional circumstances." Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 

1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court 

evaluates the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff's ability to articulate 

his or her claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved in the case. Id.

Case 4:15-cv-02092-YGR Document 5 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

In this case, while Plaintiff requests appointed counsel based on his pro se status, "being 

poverty stricken," and having a severe disability, at this stage in the proceedings, it does not 

appear that the legal issues in this case are particularly complex or that Plaintiff will prevail on his 

claims.

For these reasons, Plaintiff has not shown that exceptional circumstances warrant 

appointment of counsel, and as a result, his motion to appoint counsel is DENIED.

1

 Nonetheless, 

the Court will refer him to the Federal Pro Bono Project for free limited legal assistance. Plaintiff 

may contact the Federal Pro Bono Project by calling the appointment line at (415) 782-8982 or by 

signing up for an appointment in the appointment book located outside the San Francisco or 

Oakland Legal Help Center office. Appointments are held Monday through Friday at various 

times throughout the day. Plaintiff can speak with an attorney who will provide basic legal help, 

but not legal representation. 

III. Dismissal of Complaint for Failure to State a Claim

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a court "shall dismiss [a] case at any time if the court 

determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain "a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." But "a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "Threadbare 

recitals of the elements of a cause of action" and "conclusory statements" are not adequate. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 

probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 

unlawfully . . . . When a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's 

liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." Id.

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (internal citations omitted).

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) 

 

1 Depending on how this case progresses, Plaintiff may file a subsequent motion to appoint 

counsel if he can satisfy the legal standard discussed above.

Case 4:15-cv-02092-YGR Document 5 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). "A pro se complaint, however inartfully 

pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers . . . . " 

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106 (internal citations omitted).

Plaintiff brings this action against Public Storage and PSCC Insurance Solutions2for 

breach of contract, "neglect," and "lack of service." (Compl. at 1.) The allegations in the 

complaint allude to a fire, which apparently caused the contents of Plaintiff's storage space "to be 

showered with filthy nasty water from the second floor as well as the sprinkler in [the] unit." (Id.

at 2.) It appears that after this incident, Plaintiff submitted an insurance claim, in response to 

which some unidentified party threatened to auction his property. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff also 

alleges that a Public Storage employee told him "that there was video and pictures taken as they 

broke the lock on [his] unit and all that was sent to [him] was one sheet of photo copy of three 

photos. Two of them pitch black and one showing all [his] expensive clothing spread out in the 

sun in front of the dumpster." (Id.)

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that even if Plaintiff could state a cognizable 

claim for relief, the Court may lack subject matter jurisdiction over this action. There does not 

appear to any basis for federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor does there seem 

to be any basis for diversity jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy likely falls below the 

$75,000 threshold. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). This alone warrants dismissal of Plaintiff's 

complaint. See Majestic Ins. Co. v. Allianz Intern. Ins. Co., 133 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1220 (N.D. 

Cal. 2001) ("Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction. They are restricted as to 

what cases they may adjudicate and they may exercise jurisdiction only if it is specifically 

authorized.").

Even if, however, Plaintiff could allege facts establishing this Court's jurisdiction over 

this action, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff asserts 

claims for breach of contract, "neglect," and "lack of service," but the latter two are not 

cognizable claims. With respect to the breach of contract claim, Plaintiff has not clearly alleged 

 

2

The Court notes that Plaintiff has also sued these same Defendants in state court, which appears 

to be the proper forum.

Case 4:15-cv-02092-YGR Document 5 Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

whether the claim is asserted against Public Storage, PSCC Insurance Solutions, or both. Nor 

has he clearly alleged that each defendant engaged in conduct that violates any agreement 

between the parties.

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 

He shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of this order. The complaint shall contain 

consecutively numbered paragraphs as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10. Plaintiff 

is on notice that the first amended complaint will supersede the original complaint, such that it 

will be treated as nonexistent. See Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 878 n.40 (9th Cir. 2001), 

abrogated on other grounds by Johnson v. Cal., 543 U.S. 499 (2005). For this reason, he shall 

properly identify the legal and factual bases for all of his claims, free of any reference to any 

prior complaint, and he shall clearly identify the specific claims asserted against each defendant. 

See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. 

Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff shall allege specific facts pertaining to 

each defendant under each applicable cause of action. He shall also allege specific facts that 

establish this Court's jurisdiction over the case. Failure to file a first amended complaint within 

30 days of this order may result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.

To ensure that his first amended complaint complies with this order, Plaintiff may wish to 

contact the Federal Pro Bono Project as discussed above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 06/01/2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-02092-YGR Document 5 Filed 06/01/15 Page 4 of 4