Galera v. Servco Pacific/Chevrolet
1:22-cv-00001
| D. Haw. | Jan 3, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Jeffrey Paul Galera filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on January 3, 2022, naming SERVCO Chevrolet, HMSA, Queens Medical Center, a Dr. C. Klem, and the State of Hawaii.
- The Complaint contained almost no coherent factual allegations: it asserted a long-running conspiracy/racketeering scheme (involving insurance and medical providers), alleged perjury and federal violations, and sought general, treble, and punitive damages.
- The court screened the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether the pleading was frivolous, failed to state a claim, or sought relief from an immune defendant.
- Applying the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard, the court found the Complaint’s allegations too vague and conclusory to state any viable claim or permit the court to infer liability.
- The court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim and denied the IFP application as moot.
- The court granted leave to amend, directing Galera to file an amended complaint by January 31, 2022, and provided guidance on legibility, identifying each defendant, alleging specific facts, and stating requested relief; failure to comply would result in automatic dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Complaint states a plausible claim under §1915(e)(2) and Twombly/Iqbal | Alleged conspiracy, racketeering, perjury, and federal violations dating to 1987, but offered almost no factual detail | No specific defenses filed; court screened sua sponte | Complaint fails to plead plausible claims and is dismissed for failure to state a claim |
| Whether the IFP application should be granted | Seeks to proceed without prepaying fees | N/A (no opposing briefing) | IFP application denied as moot because the Complaint is dismissed |
| Whether leave to amend should be allowed | Implicit request to proceed and obtain relief | N/A | Court grants leave to file an Amended Complaint by Jan 31, 2022, and provides instructions; failure to comply results in automatic dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (IFP screening requires both inability to pay and minimally sufficient pleading)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (§1915 permits dismissal of claims that are frivolous or factually baseless)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts raising claim above speculative level)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual content permitting a reasonable inference of defendant’s liability)