Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00436/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00436-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Caliber Home Loans
Defendant
LSF9 Master Participation Trust
Defendant
Robert B. Stowe
Plaintiff
Lyudmilla V. Stowe
Plaintiff
Trustee Corps
Defendant
US Bank Trust
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

ROBERT B. STOWE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00436-MEJ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

INTRODUCTION

On January 25, 2016, Plaintiffs Robert B. and Lyudmilla V. Stowe (“Plaintiffs”) filed a 

Complaint and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Compl., Dkt. No. 1; Appl., Dkt. No. 

3. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis. As Plaintiffs did not yet consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the Clerk of Court shall REASSIGN this case to a District Judge, 

with the recommendation that the Complaint be DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

BACKGROUND

Although they do not state any causes of action, Plaintiffs appear to challenge the 

foreclosure of their residential mortgage and subsequent trustee sale of their residence. They 

allege JP Morgan Chase Bank “sold a 1st Mortgage Loan, that was in my wife’s name, to LSF9 

Master Participation Trust and the loan servicing to Caliber Home Loans” on February 26, 2015. 

Compl. at 6. Caliber Home Loans subsequently “put the loan into foreclosure.” Id. Although 

their home was scheduled for auction on July 2, 2015, they submitted a loss mitigation package to 

Caliber, and the auction was called off. Id. Plaintiffs submitted a second loss mitigation package 

Case 4:16-cv-00436-PJH Document 5 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 5
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

to Caliber on September 23, 2015. Id. However, their home was sold at auction on September 24, 

2015. Id. Plaintiffs bring their Complaint against Defendants LSF9 Master Participation Trust, 

Caliber Home Loans, Trustee Corps, and US Bank Trust, alleging the auction was wrongful and 

should not have occurred.

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court may authorize the commencement of a civil 

action in forma pauperis if it is satisfied that the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees 

necessary to pursue the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Here, Plaintiffs submitted the required 

documentation, and it is evident from the application that the listed assets and income are 

insufficient to enable Plaintiffs to pay the filing fees. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

SUA SPONTE SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

A. Legal Standard

A district court must dismiss the complaint of an in forma pauperis applicant if it 

determines the complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or 

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B). To make this determination, courts assess whether there is a factual and legal basis 

for the asserted wrong, “however inartfully pleaded.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-

28 (9th Cir. 1984). Further, district courts have the authority to dismiss complaints founded on 

“wholly fanciful” factual allegations. Id. at 1228.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the complaint set forth a 

“short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(d)(1)

requires that each allegation in a pleading be “simple, concise, and direct.” See McHenry v. 

Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that was 

“argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”). In addition, the 

complaint must include facts which are “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

554, 555 (2007). For instance, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court rejected conclusory 

Case 4:16-cv-00436-PJH Document 5 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 5
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

assertions that “petitioners ‘knew of, condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject 

[him]’ to harsh conditions of confinement ‘as a matter of policy, solely on the account of [his] 

religion, race, and/or national origin and for no legitimate penological interest.’” 556 U.S. 662, 

680 (2009). The Court reasoned that such allegations were akin to the “formulaic recitation of the 

elements” dismissed in Twombly, and therefore, insufficient to meet Rule 8(a). Id. In doing so, 

the Court explained, “[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.” Id. at 678.

When dismissing a case, the Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district court should 

grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that 

the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Thus, unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff 

proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).

B. Application to the Case at Bar

Having reviewed their Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiffs may have one or more viable 

claims against some or all of the four named Defendants, yet they do not identify which Defendant 

they propose to hold liable for each such claim. While Plaintiffs do directly link some individual 

Defendants to some of their allegations, for the most part they do not allege facts showing what 

each of the four named Defendants did or failed to do. Further, Plaintiffs do not allege any 

specific claims, instead stating generally that the Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant 

to “§1331 title 28 chapter 85,” and seeking $15,000 in compensation “because of monies spent of 

defending ourselves in a Unlawful Detainer action,” as well as requesting the Court “invalidate the 

auction.” Compl. at 4, 8.

In sum, even when Plaintiffs’ claims are liberally construed, they fail to provide adequate 

information for the Court to determine whether the allegations in the Complaint state cognizable 

Case 4:16-cv-00436-PJH Document 5 Filed 02/10/16 Page 3 of 5
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

claims for relief with respect to each of the four named Defendants. Despite this, the Court 

recognizes that it may not “dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend unless ‘it is 

absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.’” Akhtar 

v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Therefore, given Plaintiffs’ pro 

se status, the undersigned finds it appropriate to grant Plaintiffs leave to file an amended 

complaint in which they clearly link each Defendant to the alleged injury, or injuries, for which 

that Defendant is alleged to be responsible. To comply with Rule 8(a), Plaintiffs must include (1) 

a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction; (2) a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief 

sought. A pleading may not simply allege a wrong has been committed and demand relief; it must 

state allegations supporting the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Plaintiffs must allege 

with at least some degree of particularity the facts in which each of the named Defendants engaged 

to support their claims. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). 

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis above, the Court GRANTS the Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis. As Plaintiffs did not yet consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the Clerk of Court shall REASSIGN this case to a District Judge, 

with the recommendation that the Complaint be DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party may serve and file objections to 

this Report and Recommendation within 14 days after being served. 

The Court advises Plaintiffs that they may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help 

Center, a free service of the Volunteer Legal Services Program, by calling 415-782-8982, or by 

signing up for an appointment on the15th Floor of the Federal Courthouse in San Francisco, 450 

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. At the Legal Help Center, you will be able to 

speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help but not representation. More 

information is available online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. 

Plaintiffs may also wish to obtain a copy of the district court’s Handbook for Litigants 

Without a Lawyer. It provides instructions on how to proceed at every stage of your case, 

Case 4:16-cv-00436-PJH Document 5 Filed 02/10/16 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

including discovery, motions, and trial. The handbook is available in person at the Clerk’s Office 

and online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.

Dated: February 10, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-00436-PJH Document 5 Filed 02/10/16 Page 5 of 5