Coxon v. United States District Court
- William Alsup
- 3:22-cv-00867
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Coxon v. United States District Court, Judge Ryu granted a fee waiver but found the complaint legally insufficient and ordered an amended complaint.
Benjamin Coxon, whose request to proceed without prepaying fees was granted but whose complaint was found insufficient and who was given until February 28, 2022, to amend it.
What happened
In Coxon v. United States District Court, Benjamin Coxon asked to proceed without paying the filing fee and alleged that he had been harassed between 2011 and 2022. He asked the court to order people to stop harassing him.
The court granted Coxon’s request to proceed without prepaying fees. But it found that his complaint did not provide facts identifying the alleged harassers, describing what they did, or explaining what law supported his request for relief.
The court found that the complaint failed to state a claim and ordered Coxon to file a first amended complaint by February 28, 2022. Judge Donna M. Ryu also vacated the scheduled case-management conference and stated that failure to amend timely would lead the court to recommend dismissal.
The detailed version
- Coxon v. United States District Court · No. 3:22-cv-00867
- William Alsup
- Feb. 14, 2022
Background
Benjamin Coxon applied to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. His complaint named the United States District Court and others as defendants and alleged that he had been “harassed” on multiple occasions between 2011 and 2022. He asked the court to order “people” to stop harassing him.
Fee Application
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court may allow a person who cannot afford the filing fee to proceed without paying it in advance. After reviewing Coxon’s financial affidavit, the court found that he met the economic eligibility requirement and granted his application.
Screening of the Complaint
Because Coxon was proceeding without a lawyer, the court explained that it would read his allegations liberally. Even so, a complaint must include enough factual detail to make a legal claim plausible. The court found that Coxon’s complaint did not identify the alleged harassers, describe what they did, identify a law prohibiting the alleged conduct, or explain why the United States District Court was the proper respondent rather than the alleged harassers.
Ruling
The court found that the complaint failed to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). It ordered Coxon to file a first amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies by February 28, 2022. The court did not dismiss the action at that time; it stated that it would recommend dismissal if Coxon did not timely file the amended complaint. The court also vacated the May 11, 2022 case-management conference and stated that it would be reset later.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.