Coxon v. United States District Court
- James Donato
- 3:22-cv-01536
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Coxon v. United States District Court, Judge Donato granted Coxon’s fee waiver but dismissed his complaint with prejudice for failing to state a plausible claim.
Benjamin Coxon’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice; the United States District Court and the other named defendants were parties to the dismissed case.
What happened
In Coxon v. United States District Court, pro se plaintiff Benjamin Coxon asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. He reported monthly income below $1,000, received food stamps, and relied on his parents for housing.
The court granted that request but dismissed the complaint. It found the complaint incomprehensible and concluded that there was no reasonable likelihood Coxon could amend it to state a plausible claim, so the dismissal was with prejudice.
Judge James Donato issued the order on April 13, 2022. The court dismissed the case after screening the complaint under the federal law governing fee-waiver cases.
The detailed version
- Coxon v. United States District Court · No. 3:22-cv-01536
- James Donato
- Apr. 13, 2022
Background
Pro se plaintiff Benjamin Coxon filed a complaint against the United States District Court and other defendants. He also applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the court’s filing fee at the outset.
Coxon stated that his gross monthly income was less than $1,000, that he received food stamps, and that he relied on his parents for housing. The court found that he met the financial qualifications for this status.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court may dismiss a complaint filed by a person proceeding without paying the filing fee if it fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. The court said this standard is the same as the standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which addresses legally insufficient claims. Because Coxon represented himself, the court read his complaint liberally and gave him the benefit of reasonable doubts, but he still had to follow the basic pleading requirements and allege facts supporting a plausible claim.
Ruling
The court found that the complaint was “incomprehensible in every respect” and did not appear to be grounded in reality. It declined to analyze the complaint in greater detail and dismissed it. Although the court ordinarily allows a plaintiff to amend after an initial dismissal, it concluded that there was no reasonable likelihood Coxon could state a plausible claim. The dismissal was therefore with prejudice.
The court granted Coxon’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The order also noted that other courts had reached the same outcome in other cases filed by Coxon.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.