ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
(2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.
On May 23, 2017, Plaintiffs Montorey Danyell Harper ("Plaintiff" or "Harper"), proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against Fed Ex, the City of San Diego, the San Diego Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), the United States of America, and the United Nations (collectively, "Defendants").
I. Motion for Leave to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis
All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400.
Here, Plaintiff has supplied an affidavit in support of his application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) Plaintiff declares that his average monthly income amount during the past twelve months totaled to approximately $4231. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has $50 in cash and $830 in the form of a pre-paid debit card. (Id.) Plaintiff's monthly income exceeds his total monthly expenses, which amount to $3125. (Id. at 5.)
The Court concludes that Plaintiff can afford the $400 filing fee. Accordingly, the Court
Sua Sponte Screening
A complaint filed by any person proceeding IFP, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), is additionally subject to mandatory sua sponte screening. The Court must review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and must sua sponte dismiss any complaint, or any portion of a complaint, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)).
All complaints 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). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. The "mere possibility of misconduct" falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
"When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity, and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) ("[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that § 1915(e)(2) "parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).").
However, while the court "ha[s] an obligation where the Plaintiff is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the Plaintiff the benefit of any doubt," Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)), it may not "supply essential elements of claims that were not initially pled," Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
Moreover, the federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 479 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). It possesses only that power authorized by the Constitution or a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). It is constitutionally required to raise issues related to federal subject matter jurisdiction and may do so sua sponte. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1998); see Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990).
Here, Plaintiff's Complaint is defective in multiple respects. The entirety of Plaintiff's Complaint is as follows:
(Dkt. No. 1 at 2.)
Although unclear, Plaintiff's Complaint appears to center on an alleged tort ("a ball was rolled to hit the Plaintiff in the foot") which occurred within a Fed Ex store. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) A number of problems plague Plaintiff's Complaint. First, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants the United States, the FBI, and the United Nations. Beyond ambiguous allegations that "fraud . . . surrounds the US," (id.), Plaintiff has not alleged how the United States, the FBI, and the United Nations were involved in perpetrating the allegedly wrongful conduct underlying Plaintiff's Complaint. Second, as for Plaintiff's claim against the remaining Defendants, Plaintiff does not provide any allegations of the circumstances surrounding the "ball rolling" incident—the Complaint does not even specify who committed the allegedly tortious act. Third, even liberally construing Plaintiff's claim as a tort claim, the Court lacks original jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff's state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor has Plaintiff alleged any information showing that the Court has diversity jurisdiction in this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Moreover, Plaintiff's Complaint cannot be construed to allege a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, as Plaintiff does not allege a deprivation of a right protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute. See Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court