The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
MARK ORAVETZ, Civ. No. 6:24-cv-00415-AA
Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER
v.
MIKE ORAVETZ,
Defendant.
_______________________________________
AIKEN, District Judge.
Pro Se Plaintiff Mark Oravetz, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) in this action. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s IFP Petition, ECF
No. 2, is DENIED and the Complaint, ECF No.1, is dismissed with leave to amend
and without service on Defendant. If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint,
he must pay the filing fee. The Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF No. 3, is
DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD
Generally, all parties instituting any civil action in United States District
Court must pay a statutory filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, the federal IFP
statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), provides indigent litigants an opportunity for
meaningful access to federal courts despite their inability to pay the costs and fees
associated with that access. To authorize a litigant to proceed IFP, a court must make
two determinations. First, a court must determine whether the litigant is unable to
pay the costs of commencing the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Second, it must assess
whether the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
With regard to the second of these determinations, district courts have the
power under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints even before service of the
complaint on the 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 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)). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility
standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. 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 v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). That is, 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 (9th Cir.
1988). Additionally, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the
complaint and the opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies cannot
be cured by amendment. Id.
DISCUSSION
When assessing an IFP petition, the Court first must determine whether the
plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of indigency. Here, Plaintiff states that he
has no employment, but indicates that he has $10,000 in liquid assets, as well as
additional assets worth $6.7 billion. The Court concludes that Plaintiff is able to pay
the filing fee and so his IFP petition will be denied.
With regard to the substance of the Complaint, the Court is unable to make
out what claim or claims Plaintiff intends to assert. Plaintiff seeks to bring a claim
against Mike Oravetz but it is not clear that this Court could exercise personal
jurisdiction over Mike Oravetz, as Plaintiff has not provided an address to establish
Mike Oravetz’s state of residence and because Plaintiff alleges that the relevant acts
occurred in the State of Washington. As discussed in greater detail below, the
Complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. Should Plaintiff wish to pursue
his claim or claims, he should consider whether the state or federal courts of
Washington are a more proper jurisdiction and forum for this action.
In addition, Plaintiff’s statement of the facts giving rise to his claim or claims
is entirely incoherent and reads, in its entirety:
I was put in Jail Because Mike Oravetz Told Lawenformint [sic] I had
Automatic Weapons in Safe 4x6, and I have Talk in 15 year Because He
stole my Briefcase (Turned it with witness Zak Oravetz Bill Bendick
Clallam County Sheriffs WA State Everett WA Sheriff Witness Zak
Oravetz New House New Safe—How He know what in my house and
safe.
Compl. 4.
The Court is unable to understand what claim or claims are being raised and
no defendant, if served with this Complaint, could understand what claims were
being made against them.
This falls below the federal pleading standards and the Complaint must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim. As Plaintiff is pro se, dismissal shall be with
leave to amend and Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the date of this Order in
which to file an amended complaint. In drafting the amended complaint, Plaintiff
should bear in mind that the Court does not know anything about his situation other
than what he includes in his amended pleading. Plaintiff should briefly and clearly
explain who the defendants are, what they have done, and why Plaintiff believes the
defendants should be held liable for his injury. In addition, if Plaintiff wishes to file
an amended complaint, he should accompany his filing with payment of the filing fee
as he does not meet the indigency requirement to proceed IFP.
Finally, the Court denies the Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 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 § 1915, this Court has
discretion to request volunteer counsel for indigent parties in exceptional
circumstances. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990). Here,
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim and has failed to demonstrate indigency and so
the Court declines to request volunteer counsel at this time.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s IFP petition, ECF No. 2, is DENIED
and the Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without service on Defendant.
Dismissal is with leave to amend and Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the
date of this Order to file an amended complaint. If Plaintiff chooses to file an
amended complaint, the filing should be accompanied by payment of the filing fee.
Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an amended complaint within the allotted time
will result in entry of a judgment of dismissal without further notice. Plaintiff’s
Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF No. 3, is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED and DATED this 15th day of March 2024.
/s/Ann Aiken
ANN AIKEN
United States District Judge