Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01192/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01192-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Grace M. Kim
Defendant
Kenneth James Maxwell
Plaintiff

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

KENNETH JAMES MAXWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

GRACE M. KIM,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01192-MEJ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

INTRODUCTION

On March 10, 2016, Plaintiff Kenneth James Maxwell (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint and 

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

the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. As Plaintiff 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

Plaintiff completed his Complaint using a form entitled “Complaint for Judicial Review of 

Decision of Commissioner of Social Security.” Compl., Dkt. No. 1. However, in the body of his 

Complaint, he refers to: (1) the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has a policy that 

“discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, political beliefs, or 

disabilities is strictly prohibited”; and (2) the Americans with Disabilities Act, which “protects 

people with disabilities has [sic] a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major 

life activities restricts The [sic] ADA and City policy require that people with disabilities have 

equal access to all city services, activities, and benefits.” Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff also lists several 

Case 4:16-cv-01192-HSG Document 8 Filed 03/30/16 Page 1 of 6
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

provisions of the United States Constitution, including the Commerce Clause; and the Fifth, Ninth, 

and Thirteenth Amendments. Id. at 1. He also lists “Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Id. 

He names Grace M. Kim as the Defendant, but provides no information about her.

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, Plaintiff submitted the required 

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

insufficient to enable Plaintiff 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 

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

Case 4:16-cv-01192-HSG Document 8 Filed 03/30/16 Page 2 of 6
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

[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

Based on the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, it is unclear what type of claim he 

intends to bring. If Plaintiff’s claim is based on a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

which adversely affects him in whole or in part, he must (1) name Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, as the Defendant; and (2) provide the caption information for 

the case. 

If Plaintiff intends to bring a claim for violations of the Constitution or a federal statute 

such as Title VII, as noted above, Rule 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although a complaint “does 

not need detailed factual allegations, . . . [f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Pro se pleadings are subject to 

Rule 8(a)(2) but are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation omitted). Here, the basic facts underlying 

Case 4:16-cv-01192-HSG Document 8 Filed 03/30/16 Page 3 of 6
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

Plaintiff’s claims are unclear—the events that transpired are vague and there are no specific 

allegations regarding the named Defendant’s involvement. While it is possible Plaintiff may have 

viable claims for violations of his rights related to the Constitution or a federal statute, at present 

he has failed to allege facts supporting those claims or showing what the named Defendant did or 

failed to do in relation to each of those claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim 

showing he is entitled to relief.

Despite these problems with the current version of Plaintiff’s Complaint, it is not 

absolutely clear that Plaintiff cannot state a federal cause of action. This Court 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 Plaintiff’s pro se status the undersigned finds it 

appropriate to grant Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint if he is aware of facts supporting a 

plausible federal claim(s).

CONCLUSION

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

Pauperis. As Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff that he 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. 

Plaintiff 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-01192-HSG Document 8 Filed 03/30/16 Page 4 of 6
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: March 30, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-01192-HSG Document 8 Filed 03/30/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

KENNETH JAMES MAXWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

GRACE M. KIM,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01192-MEJ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on March 30, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Kenneth James Maxwell

525 Fifth Street

San Francisco, CA 94107 

Dated: March 30, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Chris Nathan, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable MARIA-ELENA JAMES

Case 4:16-cv-01192-HSG Document 8 Filed 03/30/16 Page 6 of 6