Coxon v. United States District Court
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-01407
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Coxon v. United States District Court, Judge Gilliam denied Coxon’s request to proceed without paying fees and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.
Benjamin Coxon, who represented himself, and the federal defendants; the complaint was dismissed and the case was closed.
What happened
In Coxon v. United States District Court, Benjamin Coxon represented himself and sued several federal defendants. He filed a request to proceed without paying court fees and submitted three revised complaints. The court found that he could not pay the fees but treated his latest filing as the operative complaint.
The court found the complaint legally frivolous and inadequate because it was difficult to understand, did not identify a legal violation or who committed it, and did not provide enough facts. Coxon cited only Title 18 of the United States Code, which the court said does not create a private right to sue. The court also considered Coxon’s prior opportunities to amend and his history of cases dismissed during similar screening.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the request to proceed without paying fees and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendant and close the case.
The detailed version
- Coxon v. United States District Court · No. 4:22-cv-01407
- Haywood Gilliam
- Dec. 15, 2022
Background
Benjamin Coxon, representing himself, filed a complaint against several federal defendants and then filed three revised complaints. The court considered his request to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning to begin the case without paying the filing fees. The court found that Coxon was unable to pay the full fees, costs, or security required to pursue the case.
Screening standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court must screen a complaint filed by someone seeking to proceed without paying fees. The court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The standard for deciding whether a complaint fails to state a claim is the same standard used for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Although courts read self-represented filings liberally, the complaint still must give defendants notice of what they allegedly did wrong and contain enough factual matter to support a plausible claim.
Court’s analysis
The court treated Coxon’s most recent filing as the operative complaint. It found that the complaint was insufficient under § 1915 and Rule 8 because it was incomprehensible and did not identify a legal violation or the person who allegedly committed it. The court also noted that Coxon cited only Title 18 of the United States Code. Title 18 regulates federal criminal activity but, according to the court, does not create a private right of action that would allow Coxon to sue based on those provisions.
The court considered Coxon’s prior cases that had been dismissed during § 1915 review, his previous notice of pleading requirements, and the three revised complaints already filed in this case. It concluded that allowing another amendment would be futile.
Disposition
The court denied Coxon’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. It dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. The clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendant and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.