Kinnard v. Navarro
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-02534
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Kinnard v. Navarro, Judge White dismissed Kinnard’s case after screening found his amended claims legally insufficient and denied an evidentiary hearing as moot.
Kenneth Kinnard’s case was dismissed at the federal court’s screening stage after the court found that his second amended complaint failed to state a claim; his motion for an evidentiary hearing was denied as moot.
What happened
In Kinnard v. Navarro, Kenneth Kinnard filed a second amended complaint alleging that attorneys and parties had conspired to commit fraud during three earlier lawsuits. He said this conduct harmed him because the courts were not given a fair opportunity to decide his claims.
The court found that the allegations were conclusory, unclear, and did not plausibly show fraud, conspiracy, or other legal violations. It also said some claims appeared barred because they had already been litigated. The court concluded that the complaint failed to give enough detail about what rights were violated, by whom, and under what legal theory.
Judge Jeffrey White dismissed the action under the federal screening statute without leave to amend, finding that further amendment would be futile. The court also denied Kinnard’s motion for an evidentiary hearing as moot.
The detailed version
- Kinnard v. Navarro · No. 4:22-cv-02534
- Jeffrey White
- Sept. 9, 2022
Background
Kenneth Kinnard filed the original complaint on April 26, 2022. The court allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, while allowing amendment. After Kinnard filed an amended complaint, the court dismissed the action without leave to amend on July 12, 2022, finding that he had not corrected earlier pleading deficiencies and that his claims appeared time-barred.
Kinnard moved for reconsideration, stating that illness had prevented him from accessing a computer or obtaining help from the pro se litigant team. The court granted reconsideration, reopened the case, and allowed him to file a second amended complaint. Kinnard filed that complaint on August 31, 2022. The court noted that it was filed after the deadline but accepted his explanation that a delivery error caused the delay.
Analysis
The court applied the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Under that standard, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim and enough factual matter to make the requested relief plausible, rather than merely stating labels or conclusions.
Kinnard alleged that numerous attorneys and parties conspired to commit fraud on the court during three prior lawsuits. He appeared to allege that certain attorneys misled state and federal courts by failing to amend a complaint to assert a particular claim, misleading him into withdrawing a cause of action, failing to file appeals, and misrepresenting his wishes about withdrawing an amended complaint.
The court found these allegations conclusory and held that none rose to the level of fraud on the court. It explained that fraud on the court generally requires exceptionally serious misconduct that harms the integrity of the judicial process, such as bribery of a judge or jury or fabrication of evidence involving an attorney.
The court also found Kinnard’s other causes of action deficient. Although he used labels such as fraud and conspiracy, he did not allege facts making those claims plausible or plead the basic elements of conspiracy. The complaint was confusing and did not clearly identify which rights were violated, who violated them, or the legal theory supporting relief. The court further stated that claims already litigated in federal court could not be relitigated and that some claims in the second amended complaint appeared barred by claim preclusion, also called res judicata.
Disposition
The court found that the second amended complaint failed to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Because Kinnard had twice been given leave to amend and had not corrected the deficiencies, the court concluded that further leave to amend would be futile. The court dismissed the action without leave to amend. It denied as moot Kinnard’s motion for an evidentiary hearing, directed that a separate judgment issue, and ordered the Clerk to close the file.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.