The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
ROBERTS. BONDICK Case No. 6:19-cv-00520-AA
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
VS.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, et al,
Defendants.
AIKEN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Robert S. Boncick seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis CITFP”) in
this action. (oc. 2). For the reasons set forth below, the Amended Complaint (doc.
26) is DISMISSED without leave to amend, plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Pro
Bono Counsel (doc, 3) is DENIED, and plaintiffs IFP petition (doc. 2)is GRANTED.
STANDARDS
When a plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP, district courts have the power under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints even before service of the complaint on
defendants and must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim, Courts apply the
same standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as when addressing a motion to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d
Page 1- OPINION AND ORDER
1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive a motion to dismiss under the federal pleading
standards, the complaint must include a short and plain statement of the claim and
“contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The court is not required to accept legal
conclusions, unsupported by alleged facts, as true. Id.
Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than pleadings by
attorneys. Haines vu. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). The court should construe
pleadings by pro se plaintiffs liberally and afford the plaintiffs the benefit of any
doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (8th Cir, 1988).
A pro se litigant is also entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and the
opportunity to amend, unless the complaint's deficiencies cannot be cured. Id.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that defendants contributed to the prolonged period of
homelessness that he experienced between 2014 and 2016 and that, during that time,
he was assaulted and severely injured while sleeping outdoors in Eugene, Oregon.
Plaintiff initially filed this action against the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System on April 9, 2019, along with an IFP petition and Motion for
Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel. The Court dismissed the Complaint for lack of
standing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915()(2)(B), granted plaintiff leave to amend the
complaint by May 29, 2019, and deferred ruling on the IFP petition and motion for
appointment of counsel.
Page 2-— OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on June 3, 2019.1 The Amended
Complaint alleges that plaintiff is disabled and his sole source of income is Social
Security benefits. Plaintiff also alleges that, in February 2014, he “relocated to the
California and had to take up shelter in a hotel till he ran out of money each month”
and that his “credit rating dropped, leaving it harder for him to find an apartment.”
Amend. Compl. at 7.
The Amended Complaint reasserts plaintiffs claims against the Board of
Governors and also names the Chair of the Board of Governors, the Chair of the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation as defendants. The Amended Complaint appears to allege that these
defendants’ policies and omissions contributed to property management companies’
practices and standards that made it difficult for plaintiff to obtain housing, including
“the lending practice that allows the governing viability of our fair housing laws,
specifically legally discriminating based on an allowable national standard of a
minimum monthly income requirements of at least 33-40X percent of the monthly
rent,” id. at 2, and rules “that allow realty company’s [sic] to leave apartments
vacant,” id. at 7. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants “allowed continuation
of poor lending practices to realty company’s [sic] with out proper oversight, leaving
the Plaintiff homeless,” Jd. at 8, Plaintiff also alleges that the “real-estate bubble
that helped crate [sic] the 2007-2010 financial crisis, could have been slowed down to
1 Because the Amended Complaint was untimely, the Court could dismiss the action without
proceeding to the screening inquiry under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). But, because, as explained below, that
inquiry also points to dismissal, the Court will excuse the timeliness issue and address the allegations
in the Amended Complaint.
Page 3 —- OPINION AND ORDER
help fund real-estate and the construction market that comes with it at 8.5 GPD of
the stock market.” Id. at 7.
Once again, plaintiff has failed to allege standing. Article III standing is a
jurisdictional requirement for any claim filed in federal court. Wilson v, Lynch, 835,
5.3d 1083, 1090 & n.2. To have standing, a “plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury
in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable te the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (8)
that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
1368. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016), At the pleading stage, the complaint must contain facts
establishing each element of standing. Id.
Like those alleged in the original Complaint, the injuries alleged in the
Amended Complaint, including homelessness and physical harm, are not “fairly
traceable” to defendants’ conduct. The allegations added in the Amended Complaint,
which describe the legal framework governing the Federal Reserve and federal
financial policy and add further detail to plaintiffs theory of lability, do not cure the
fundamental issue identified by this Court’s earlier opinion, Plaintiffs injuries
remain “highly indirect” and the result of “the independent actions of [multiple] third
part[ies] not before the court,” including the property management companies that
denied plaintiffs rental applications and the individuals who attacked plaintiff. Allen
vu. Wright, 468 U.S, 737, 758 (1984),
Insum, plaintiff has failed to allege standing after the Court provided him with
an opportunity to amend. The Court concludes that further amendment would be
futile. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend.
Page 4— OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel (doc. 3).
Generally, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. United States v.
30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir, 1986). However, pursuant to 28
ULS.C, § 1915(e), this Court has discretion to request volunteer counsel for indigent
parties in exceptional circumstances. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1382, 1335 (9th
Cur, 1990). To determine whether exceptional circumstances exist, this Court
evaluates the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits and ability to articulate
his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. /d. at 1335-
36, At this stage, the Court does not find that exceptional circumstances exist to
warrant appointment of counsel, as plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits.
Accordingly, plaintiffs motion is DENIED.
Plaintiffs IFP petition (doc, 1) is GRANTED,
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs IFP Petition (doc. 1) is GRANTED, the Amended Compliant (doc. 9)
is DISMISSED without service upon the defendants and without leave to amend, and
the Motion for Appointment of Po Bono Counsel (dec. 3) is DENIED. Finaljudgment
shall be entered accordingly.
Itis so ORDERED and DATED this 1 say of December 2019,
Ce Abend
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge
Page §-OPINION AND ORDER