Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03811/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03811-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clarence A. Branch
Plaintiff
United States of America
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

CLARENCE A. BRANCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-03811-JSC 

ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

Plaintiff Clarence A. Branch, proceeding pro se, brings this action against the United 

States of America. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis and reserved to a later time evaluation of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Dkt. 

No. 3.) The Court thereafter issued an Order to Show Cause because mail sent to Plaintiff at his 

last known address had been returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff has since 

responded to the Order to Show Cause, provided his new address, and consented to the 

jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge. (Dkt. No. 10.) As discussed below, having 

now conducted review of the Complaint pursuant to Section 1915, the Court DISMISSES 

Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court has a continuing duty to dismiss any case in which a 

party is proceeding in forma pauperis if the Court determines that the action is (1) frivolous or 

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. § 1915(e)(2); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal 

conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”). Upon 

Case 3:16-cv-03811-JSC Document 11 Filed 10/17/16 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

dismissal, pro se plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be given leave to “amend their 

complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 

amendment.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1235 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal citations and 

quotation marks omitted); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000); Balistreri v. 

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1988); Breier v. N. Cal. Bowling Proprietors’ 

Ass’n, 316 F.2d 787, 790 (9th Cir. 1963).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief 

must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 

relief.” This rule “require[s] that the pleading ... give[ ] the opposing party fair notice of the nature 

and basis or grounds of the claim and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.” 

Immigrant Assistance Project of Los Angeles Cnty. Fed’n of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. I.N.S., 306 F.3d 

842, 865 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice 

and Procedure § 1215 (2d ed. 1990)). “[A]lthough pro se pleadings are construed liberally, even 

pro se pleadings must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what 

it is that it allegedly did wrong.” Doe v. Fed. Dist. Court, 467 F. App’x 725, 727 (9th Cir. 2012)

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

The nature of Plaintiff’s action here is unclear. Although he has captioned the complaint 

“unlawful detainer” which is typically used to refer to a dispute over leased property rights, he has 

not identified any dispute regarding real property. In fact, the complaint contains no discussion of 

the nature of Plaintiff’s legal claim, and instead, contains the cover page captioned “unlawful 

detainer,” a certificate of service, and an “Appendix” to which several citations and an order from 

the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia are attached. (Dkt. No. 1 at 7.1

) 

The citations are from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the Los Angeles Police 

Department. (Id. at 4-6, 8.) Plaintiff’s civil cover sheet indicates that the “Nature of Suit” of 

“Civil Detainee-Conditions of Confinement” and states that he is suing under “18 USCS Appx. 

ART1 Title 18 Rule 60” and seeks $100,000,000.00 (Id. at 1-1.) However, this is not a valid 

 1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

Case 3:16-cv-03811-JSC Document 11 Filed 10/17/16 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

citation to the United States Code and Plaintiff’s address does not suggest that he is a civil 

detainee.

The Court cannot discern the nature of Plaintiff’s legal claims from this filing. Because 

the filing presents “no cognizable legal theory [and] an absence of sufficient facts alleged to 

support a cognizable legal theory,” the Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Shroyer 

v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010)

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by November 14, 2016. Plaintiff is warned that if he 

fails to file an amended complaint by this date, this action will be dismissed. Any amended 

complaint shall specify the basis for his legal claim(s) and the facts which support his claim(s). 

As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court directs his attention to the Handbook for Pro Se 

Litigants, which is available along with further information for the parties on the Court’s website 

located at http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. Plaintiff may also contact the Legal Help 

Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, Telephone No. (415)-782-8982, for 

free assistance regarding his claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-03811-JSC Document 11 Filed 10/17/16 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE A. BRANCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-03811-JSC 

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 October 17, 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.

Clarence A. Branch

391 Ellis Street

General Delivery

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Dated: October 17, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

Case 3:16-cv-03811-JSC Document 11 Filed 10/17/16 Page 4 of 4