Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tshishimbi-Bashale v. Tabu-Isa

United States District Court, D. Idaho

August 16, 2018

PIERRE TSHISHIMBI-BASHALE, Plaintiff,
v.
TABU-ISA AND HER BOSS OF PACKERS SANITATION, INC., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          Honorable Edward J. Lodge U.S. District Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         On 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 be dismissed.

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff's 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 matters.”

         DISCUSSION

         1. Standard of Review

         Once a 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”).

         Because 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).

         Under 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, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

         A 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).

         If the 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).

         2. Analysis

         Plaintiff 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.