Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00043/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00043-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mitchell Dixon
Plaintiff
Ronald Stym
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

MITCHELL DIXON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD STYM,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-0043-KJM-KJN PS

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On March 25, 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 

dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 6.) Thereafter, on April 27, 2016, 

plaintiff filed a 12-page statement, which the court liberally construes as plaintiff’s amended 

complaint. (ECF No. 7.) After carefully reviewing plaintiff’s amended complaint, the court

recommends that the case be DISMISSED without further leave to amend.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if it 

determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails 

to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune 

defendant. 

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); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

Case 2:16-cv-00043-KJM-KJN Document 8 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 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

2

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327.

To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. 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. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the well-pled factual allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 

(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. 

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 

(1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear 

that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma 

pauperis is ordinarily entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. See Noll 

v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1230 (9th 

Cir. 1984).

In its March 25, 2016 order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend, the 

court outlined the above-mentioned law and pleading standards, and observed as follows: 

Here, plaintiff’s complaint is completely unintelligible. It appears 

to quote from certain disjointed statutes, court rules, and case law, 

and refers to various legal terms and concepts without providing 

any factual context. Indeed, although the complaint names Ronald 

Stym as a defendant, it does not allege any facts whatsoever about 

that individual, does not specify what type of claim is asserted 

against him, or even why this court has subject matter jurisdiction 

over this action. All that the court can possibly ascertain from the 

complaint is that plaintiff was the defendant in a criminal case in 

the Sacramento County Superior Court, and that defendant was

somehow dissatisfied with some of the proceedings in that case. 

Case 2:16-cv-00043-KJM-KJN Document 8 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 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

3

Because plaintiff’s complaint, even when liberally construed, does

not plead factual allegations that allow the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the named defendant is liable for any 

misconduct, it is subject to dismissal. Nevertheless, in light of 

plaintiff’s pro se status, the court finds it appropriate to grant 

plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint.

(Id.) Unfortunately, plaintiff’s amended complaint is no less confusing than the original 

complaint. It again does not identify what type of claim is being asserted or why the court has 

subject matter jurisdiction over the action. The amended complaint also does not explain who the 

defendant named in the original complaint, Ronald Stym, is, and in fact does not name any 

defendants, now styling the case as “Mitchell Dixon vs. Et. Al.” (See ECF No. 7 at 1.) At best, 

the amended complaint appears to be plaintiff’s random and largely unintelligible stream of 

thoughts concerning the judicial system, the purposes of incarceration, and societal problems, 

without any meaningful context. Because plaintiff’s amended complaint, even when liberally 

construed, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and also appears frivolous, it is 

subject to dismissal. 

The court has carefully considered whether further leave to amend should be granted, and 

ultimately concludes that it is not appropriate. Plaintiff has already been provided with notice of 

the deficiencies of his claim and an opportunity to amend. Ordinarily, if plaintiff had made some 

effort to improve his pleading, or if the court were able to ascertain some potentially viable claim 

against an identified defendant, the court would have been inclined to permit another opportunity 

to amend, especially in light of plaintiff’s pro se status. However, given the nature of both the 

complaint and amended complaint, the court finds that granting further leave to amend here

would be futile.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The action be dismissed without further leave to amend

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

In light of those recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading,

discovery, and motion practice in this action are STAYED pending resolution of these findings 

and recommendations. With the exception of objections to the findings and recommendations 

Case 2:16-cv-00043-KJM-KJN Document 8 Filed 05/02/16 Page 3 of 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

4

and non-frivolous motions of an emergency nature, the court will not entertain or respond to any 

additional pleadings or motions until the findings and recommendations are resolved.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: May 2, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00043-KJM-KJN Document 8 Filed 05/02/16 Page 4 of 4