Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01332/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01332-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fletcher Legardy
Plaintiff
Taco Bell
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

FLETCHER LEGARDY

Plaintiff,

v.

TACO BELL,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-01332-DJC-JDP (PS)

ORDER 

SCREENING THE COMPLAINT AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

ECF Nos. 1 & 2

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff filed a complaint purporting to assert claims against Taco Bell, together with an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. His complaint, however, fails to state a claim, and I 

will recommend that it be dismissed with leave to amend. I will grant plaintiff’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(a)(1) and (2).

Screening and Pleading Requirements

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

Case 2:23-cv-01332-DJC-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/09/24 Page 1 of 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

2

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Analysis

The complaint is unintelligible and fails to assert any cause of action. See generally ECF 

No. 1. Indeed, the complaint contains one sentence describing the purport claim: “The courts did 

not do fact checks on the [illegible] I asked: call my Congresswoman Doris Matsui 916 498-

5600.” Id. at 5. 

The complaint fails to comport with Rule 8’s requirement that it present a short and plain 

statement of plaintiff’s claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The complaint names “Taco Bell” as the 

defendant, but the complaint does not provide any identifiable information for which Taco Bell he 

wishes to bring suit against. And, in any event, the complaint asserts no discernable facts relating 

to Taco Bell. Allegations in a complaint must identify actions taken by a defendant to support a 

claim for relief. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The 

plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants 

engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.”). The complaint fails to meet that requirement. 

I will allow plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this 

action be dismissed. Plaintiff should also take care to add specific factual allegations against the 

defendant. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will 

Case 2:23-cv-01332-DJC-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/09/24 Page 2 of 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

3

supersede the current one. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without 

reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is 

filed, the current one no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in 

the original, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in 

sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer 

to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will 

recommend that this action be dismissed. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 

2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an 

amended complaint or advise the court he wishes to stand by his current complaint. If he selects 

the latter option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 

3. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01332-DJC-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/09/24 Page 3 of 3