Smith v. Vencil

Background

Jude Smith filed this action without an attorney against Carrie Vencil, Ryan Van Hook, Melissa Sharp, “Husband Marty,” Greg Sharp, Marilyn Smith, Steve Pratt, and Bobbie Angel. Bobbie Angel was identified as a defendant in the complaint’s body but not in its caption. The court had granted Smith permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The complaint alleged that Smith’s sister, Bobbie Angel, induced him to sign off on an amendment to their grandmother’s will. Smith alleged that Angel told him Leanne Redlinger had become the executor of the estate and had deprived the family of most of its inheritance, leaving each person with $1,200. Smith alleged that he received only $1,200 while other family members received more. He asserted claims for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.

The court also described two earlier related proceedings involving substantially similar allegations. In one, the court dismissed the claims with permission to file another amended complaint. Smith then filed a new complaint in another related proceeding, which the court dismissed because it appeared nearly identical to the earlier complaint. Smith voluntarily dismissed the earlier case without filing an amended complaint.

Screening and analysis

Because Smith was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The statute requires dismissal if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant.

The court applied the pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. For fraud claims, the court also applied Rule 9(b), which requires the plaintiff to describe the alleged fraud with particularity, including the “who, what, when, where, and how.” Under California law, the court identified the elements of fraud as a misrepresentation, knowledge that it was false, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and resulting damage.

The court found that Smith’s complaint did not provide enough facts about the alleged misrepresentations made by each defendant or explain specifically how Smith was defrauded. Because Smith had already filed substantially similar complaints, the court concluded that allowing another amendment would be futile.

Ruling

The court concluded that Smith’s complaint did not state any cognizable claim. It dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. The provided text does not clearly identify the judge by name; the signature appears partially unreadable.