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.

Dela Cruz v. Todd

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

February 28, 2017

GINA DIANE INDA DELA CRUZ, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. TAMARA TODD, Defendant.

          ORDER: (1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS; AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

          J. Michael Seabright Chief United States District Judge

         ORDER: (1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS; AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On December 22, 2016, Plaintiff Gina Diane Inda Dela Cruz (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed an “Opening Statement, ” ECF No. 1, which the court construes as a Complaint. On January 30, 2017, Plaintiff sought to proceed in forma pauperis by filing an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”), ECF No. 6, and a “Statement” that provides more detail regarding her financial condition, ECF No. 7. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the court finds these matters suitable for disposition without a hearing. Based on the following, the court GRANTS the IFP Application and DISMISSES the Complaint with leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. IFP Application

         Plaintiff's IFP Application and Statement, viewed together, indicate that Plaintiff's sole income is $866 per month in Social Security disability payments. IFP Appl. ¶¶ 2, 3; Statement at PageID ## 13, 14. Plaintiff has $50 in a bank account, $200 in cash, and two cars, one of which has a “broken throttle problem.” IFP Appl. ¶¶ 4, 5. Plaintiff's expenses include $509 per month for rent, $61 for car insurance, and an unspecified amount for a cell phone. Id. ¶ 6; Statement at PageID # 13. Plaintiff has no dependents or other debts. IFP Appl. ¶¶ 7, 8.

         Because Plaintiff has made the required showing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis (i.e., without prepayment of fees), the court GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP Application.

         B. The Complaint

         1. Factual Allegations

         Plaintiff's Complaint reads in its entirety:

Your Honor Dr. Tamara Todd had no evidence that I did harm to my baby Sienna Lovely Garcia in 2009. I did no harm to my daughter and Dr. Tamara Todd violated my privacy to ask me about a c.p.s. Case and made a false call on me to c.p.s. at the hospital Hilo medical center. In bad faith she called c.p.s. with no evidence of harm she violated the laws of TITLE 42 1983 AND TITLE 42 1985. I am asking that she pay of the harm that she caused me. I'm asking for 7 million dollars for the hell that she caused and me not having my daughter for years. I do have evidence that Child protective services did me wrong.

Compl. at 1.

         2. Standards of Review

         The court must subject each civil action commenced pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), governing IFP proceedings, to mandatory screening. The court must order the dismissal of any claim that it finds “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see, e.g., Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (holding that “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state a claim).

         To state a claim, a pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Weber v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 521 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008).

         A claim is plausible “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 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). But factual allegations that only permit the court to infer “the mere possibility of misconduct” do not show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief as required by Rule 8. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. Thus, a district court may dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 where it fails to provide the defendant fair notice of the wrongs allegedly committed. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 ...


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.