MetroLink

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 ERNEST GODFREY LOGAN, JR., Case No. 2:26-cv-01520-DAD-CSK (PS)

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

14 METROLINK, (ECF Nos. 1, 2)

15 Defendant.

16

17 Plaintiff Earnest Godfrey Logan, Jr. is representing himself in this action and

18 seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF

19 Nos. 1, 2.) For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s IFP application

20 be denied, and the Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.

21 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that the court may authorize the commencement,

23 prosecution or defense of any suit without prepayment of fees or security “by a person

24 who submits an affidavit stating the person is “unable to pay such fees or give security

25 therefor.” This affidavit is to include, among other things, a statement of all assets the

26 person possesses. Id. The IFP statute does not itself define what constitutes insufficient

27

1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R.

28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c).

1 assets. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). In Escobedo,

2 the Ninth Circuit stated that an affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient

3 where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay court costs and still afford the necessities of

4 life. Id. “One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis

5 statute.” Id. Nonetheless, a party seeking IFP status must allege poverty “with some

6 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. According to the United States Department

7 of Health and Human Services, the current poverty guideline for a household of one (not

8 residing in Alaska or Hawaii) is $15,650.00. See U.S. Dpt. Health & Human Service

9 (available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines).

10 Here, Plaintiff has made the required financial showing under 28 U.S.C.

11 § 1915(a). See ECF No. 2. However, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s IFP application

12 be denied because the action is facially frivolous or without merit. “‘A district court may

13 deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the

14 proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of

15 Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Tr., 821

16 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Dep’t of Child Support Servs., 584

17 Fed. App’x. 638 (9th Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying

18 McGee's request to proceed IFP because it appears from the face of the amended

19 complaint that McGee's action is frivolous or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d

20 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District Court to examine any application for

21 leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine whether the proposed proceeding has

22 merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is bound to deny a

23 motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). Because it appears from the face

24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint that this action is frivolous or is without merit as discussed in

25 more detail below, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s IFP motion be denied.

26 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

27 Even if the Court were to grant Plaintiff’s IFP application, Plaintiff’s Complaint

28 warrants dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)’s required pre-answer screening.

1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis

2 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to

3 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a

4 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith,

5 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an

6 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In

7 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual

8 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and

9 construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id. at 326-27;

10 Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir.

11 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).

12 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627

13 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post-Iqbal).

14 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable

15 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d

16 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does

17 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007);

18 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

19 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough

20 facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A

21 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court

22 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

23 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the

24 complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be

25 cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80

26 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).

27 III. THE COMPLAINT

28 Plaintiff appears to allege that on March 11, 2026, he visited the Defendant Union

1 Grand Station to ride a train operated by Defendant MetroLink. Compl. at 5 (ECF No. 1).

2 Plaintiff alleged he had eaten lunch at a Subway restaurant located in the station, and

3 once he had finished his meal, was knocked unconscious by unnamed individuals

4 referred to as “Blacks & Hispanic.” Id. Plaintiff alleges these individuals “stole all [his]

5 keys to [his] (P.O. Box) & (sic) work lottery machine keys along with [his] laundry

6 machine keys. Id. Plaintiff also alleges these individuals stole “over a hundred diamonds

7 in a black bag.” Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of $99 million. Compl. at 6.

8 IV. DISCUSSION

9 A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

10 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may hear only those cases

11 authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

12 Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry, and “[f]ederal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction,

13 ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516,

14 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546

15 (1986)); see Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858

16 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Without jurisdiction, the district court cannot decide the

17 merits of a case or order any relief and must dismiss the case. See Morongo, 858 F.2d

18 at 1380. A federal court’s jurisdiction may be established in one of two ways: actions

19 arising under federal law or those between citizens of different states in which the

20 alleged damages exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. “Subject-matter jurisdiction

21 can never be waived or forfeited,” and “courts are obligated to consider sua sponte”

22 subject matter jurisdiction even when not raised by the parties. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565

23 U.S. 134, 141 (2012).

24 The Complaint fails to establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See

25 Compl. The Complaint asserts jurisdiction based on federal law. Compl. at 3. However,

26 the Complaint does not identify the basis for federal court subject matter jurisdiction, and

27 the Court was not able to discern a jurisdictional basis. See Compl. The Complaint does

28 not allege diversity of citizenship or present any federal question. See id. Plaintiff and

1 Defendant MetroLink appear to be citizens of California with both parties having a

2 California address. Compl. at 1. Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

3 B. Failure to Comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

4 The Complaint also does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim as

5 required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In order to give fair notice of the claims

6 and the grounds on which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of

7 particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v.

8 Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible

9 pleading policy, even a pro se litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the

10 elements of a claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733

11 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, the Complaint does not contain facts supporting any

12 cognizable legal claim against any defendant. In fact, the Complaint does not allege any

13 conduct by either defendant. See Compl. Instead, Plaintiff’s alleged injuries can be

14 traced to unnamed individuals. Compl. at 5. The Complaint therefore fails to state a

15 claim on which relief may be granted and is subject to dismissal. See McHenry v. Renne,

16 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint where “one

17 cannot determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what

18 theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”).

19 C. Leave to Amend

20 The Complaint does not present a cogent, non-frivolous claim. In light of the

21 Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the Complaint’s deficiencies, including

22 failing to trace Plaintiff’s alleged harm to either defendant, it appears granting leave to

23 amend would be futile. The Complaint should therefore be dismissed without leave to

24 amend. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06

25 (9th Cir. 1995).

26 V. CONCLUSION

27 Based upon the findings above, it is RECOMMENDED that:

28 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be DENIED;

1 2. Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED without leave to amend;

2 and

3 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case.

4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

5 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

6 | 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

7 || written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should

8 || be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any

9 || reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14

10 | days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time

11 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,

12 | 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

13 | Dated: 08/10/26 C iy s

14 CHI SOO KIM

45 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 || 7, loga.1520.26.f&r.screen

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28