United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Honorable Edward J. Lodge U.S. District Judge
February 5, 2018, the Clerk of the Court conditionally filed
Plaintiff Pierre Tshishimbi-Bashale's Complaint subject
to later review by the Court to determine whether he is
entitled to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Dkt. 3.)
Plaintiff filed his Complaint without the assistance of
counsel. Because Plaintiff requests to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court has conducted an initial review of
the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Having
reviewed the record and being otherwise fully informed, the
Court finds that Plaintiff's claims fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted and, therefore, should
Complaint is captioned as “corruption/polemics [sic]
and levy of property” and raises claims for violations
of his civil rights and tort products liability against his
girlfriend, Tabu-Isa, and her boss, Packers Sanitation, Inc.
Idaho. (Dkt. 2.) Plaintiff alleges Ms. Tabu-Isa was
“corrupted at her work by her supervisor” and
that she is now cheating on Plaintiff with her supervisor and
she has asked him to get his properties “she kept as
commitment we had together.” (Dkt. 2.) The events
giving rise to the claims appear to have occurred on January
22, 2018 when Plaintiff alleges he arrived to retrieve his
properties and the “men was present there with Mr.
Amisi the…community president” and Plaintiff
called the police who told him to file a civil case. (Dkt.
2.) The Complaint seeks relief in the form of
“Judgment/Restitution, and Security of these
Standard of Review
complaint has been conditionally filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, the Court must conduct an initial review of the
Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The
Court must dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof if it:
(1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). “In
determining whether a complaint is frivolous, “a court
is not bound, as it usually is when making a
determination based solely on the pleadings, to accept
without question the truth of the plaintiff's
allegations.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 32 (1992) (emphasis in original). A court may find a
complaint factually frivolous “when the facts alleged
rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,
whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts
available to contradict them.” Id.; see
also O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir.
1990) (holding a complaint submitted in forma
pauperis “is frivolous if it has no arguable basis
in fact or law”).
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Complaint must
be liberally construed, and Plaintiff must be given the
benefit of any doubt. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d
443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). Even so, plaintiffs-whether
represented or not-have the burden of articulating their
claims clearly and alleging facts sufficient to support
review of each claim. See Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d
469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992). Pro se litigants are
“subject to the same rules of procedure and evidence as
defendants who are represented by counsel.” United
States v. Merrill, 746 F.2d 458, 465 (9th Cir. 1984).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, every civil complaint must
include three elements: (1) a short and plain statement of
the grounds for the court's jurisdiction; (2) a short and
plain statement of the claims showing the pleader is entitled
to relief; and (3) a demand for relief sought. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8(a)(2) requires only “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief, ” in order to
“give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Although Rule 8 “does not require detailed factual
allegations, ... it demands more than unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
complaint fails to state a claim for relief under Rule 8 if
the factual assertions in the complaint, taken as true, are
insufficient for the reviewing court plausibly “to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. “Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Id. If the facts pleaded are “merely
consistent with a defendant's liability, ” the
complaint has not stated a claim for relief that is plausible
on its face. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
complaint can be saved by amendment, the plaintiff should be
notified of the deficiencies and provided an opportunity to
amend. See Jackson. v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 758 (9th
Cir. 2003). A dismissal without leave to amend is improper
unless it is beyond doubt that the Complaint “could not
be saved by any amendment.” Harris v. Amgen,
Inc., 573 F.3d 728, 737 (9th Cir. 2009).
has not alleged sufficient facts or a sufficient legal basis
to proceed with his Complaint in this case. The facts alleged
in the Complaint are far too limited to satisfy the notice
pleading required under Rule 8. The Complaint is completely
devoid of the “who, what, why, where, and when”
necessary to set forth a claim for relief let alone notify
the Defendants of what the claims are and the basis for such