Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

De-Amor v. Cabalas

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

April 2, 2019




         On March 13, 2019, Plaintiff Elgene Luzon De-Amor, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in this matter along with an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees and Costs (“IFP Application”). See ECF Nos. 1 & 2. This court dismissed the original Complaint and denied as moot the IFP Application. De-Amor was given leave to file an Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 5.

         On March 19, 2019, De-Amor filed an Amended Complaint along with a second IFP Application. See ECF Nos. 6 & 7. On March 27, 2019, De-Amor filed two other documents that appear to be intended to supplement her Amended Complaint. See ECF Nos. 8 & 9.

         To proceed in forma pauperis, De-Amor must demonstrate that she is unable to prepay the court fees and that she sufficiently pleads claims. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). Even if De-Amor could demonstrate that she cannot afford to prepay the costs of initiating this action, this court may dismiss her Amended Complaint at the outset if it appears from the facts alleged that the action is frivolous, that the action 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); see also Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987).

         De-Amor's Amended Complaint fails to state a claim on which the court can grant relief. While De-Amor refers to many Defendants, there is no factual detail alleged with respect to what each may have done. The Amended Complaint is therefore dismissed, and the second IFP Application is denied as moot. The Amended Complaint's allegations are insufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Not only are they often illegible, what can be read consists of rambling, conclusory statements unsupported by coherent factual detail. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (Rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully- harmed-me accusation”).

         This court has attempted to decipher De-Amor's handwriting, but still cannot tell what claims De-Amor might be asserting or who allegedly harmed her by doing what. For example, De-Amor alleges:

Please all Rebuke and remove abolish all. demolish all they did against us--these all Lists Defendants. It is their own crimed Crime owned--bad credit they owned. It is their own Law crimed Crime murderer Inflictions against us. EL and 2 children and my Family Sisters & brother Agrifino. We've been sick body-head-dangered harmed and damaged. Physical nature. The are all badevil unhuman Spirit[] and anemic, insomnia, long term head sores, hair white, ie legs broken

ECF No. 6, PageID # 49 (quotation marks omitted).

         De-Amor later states:

Too much invasion dangerous Acts. harmful Slasher Acts--I no reason doing this to us/me. Also bad spyer out earth & image crime nature. ?!why?! to much obstructions and Inflictions Radiations harmful to True human like me/us all. Why this??? They are creating Domestic Violence here and other place! U.S. Police and Security in here Ignore these man Griff . . .

         ECF No. 8, PageID # 135 (quotation marks and emphasis omitted).

         Because De-Amor fails to allege any viable claim over which this court has subject matter jurisdiction, this court dismisses her Amended Complaint, but grants her leave to file a Second Amended Complaint no later than April 30, 2019. This document must be complete in itself; it may not incorporate by reference anything previously filed with this court. The court provides some guidance to De-Amor should she decide to file a Second Amended Complaint.

         First, De-Amor should attempt to write as legibly as possible. This court cannot easily decipher De-Amor's cursive handwriting and encourages her to write in print.

         Second, De-Amor should not write in the margins, as that makes it even harder to determine what she is alleging. If De-Amor uses the court form but needs more space, she may say, “See Attachment 1” and then may label a separate sheet of paper as “Attachment 1” and continue her writing on “Attachment 1.” Then, if she comes to a later part of the court form where she again needs more space, she may say, “See Attachment 2” and may label ...

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.