Coxon v. United States District Court
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-05099
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Coxon v. United States District Court, Magistrate Judge Spero ordered Coxon to explain or amend deficient claims before possible dismissal.
Benjamin Coxon and the continuation of his case; the order required him to amend his complaint or explain why it should not be dismissed.
What happened
In Coxon v. United States District Court, the court reviewed Benjamin Coxon’s complaint after allowing him to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court said the complaint described possible conduct but did not identify who committed the alleged violations or connect that conduct to specific claims.
The court found that the complaint did not meet the federal rule requiring a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. It ordered Coxon to file an amended complaint or explain why the current complaint was sufficient by September 24, 2021.
If Coxon did not respond, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed with prejudice. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero also continued the case-management conference to November 5, 2021.
The detailed version
- Coxon v. United States District Court · No. 4:21-cv-05099
- Haywood Gilliam
- Aug. 27, 2021
Background
The court had granted Benjamin Coxon permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. That required the court to screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which permits dismissal of claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant protected from such relief.
The opinion states that this was Coxon’s fifth case filed in the court in just over a year. It says the earlier cases had been dismissed during the court’s required screening. The opinion also states that Coxon filed two additional complaints after filing this action.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Coxon’s complaint was insufficiently pleaded. According to the opinion, the complaint contained lengthy allegations about conduct he might have experienced, but did not identify the individuals or entities that allegedly committed the violations or link the alleged conduct to particular claims.
The court concluded that the complaint did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court also discussed Rule 12(b)(6), the rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim, and explained that courts accept factual allegations as true but not conclusory legal statements.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause rather than dismissing the case at that time. It ordered Coxon, by September 24, 2021, either to file an amended complaint correcting the identified problems or to respond by explaining why the current complaint was sufficient.
The order stated that, if Coxon did not respond by that date, the case would be reassigned to a United States district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed with prejudice. The court also continued the previously scheduled case-management conference from October 1, 2021, to November 5, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.
Disposition
The court ordered Coxon to show cause and gave him an opportunity to amend or defend the sufficiency of his complaint. It did not dismiss the case in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.