(PS) Sharp v. Stockton Enterprises, 2:17-cv-00219

Plaintiff Calysta Sharp, proceeding pro se, filed a nearly blank complaint against Stockton Enterprises and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
The complaint checked federal-question jurisdiction but only referenced "#896; Arbitration, et al." and attached an internet search result allegedly showing a communication from defendant.
The magistrate judge screened the filing under § 1915 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and found the complaint fails to allege facts showing a legal wrong or federal jurisdiction.
The court concluded the complaint is frivolous on its face because it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact and does not identify any actionable conduct by defendant.
Plaintiff’s IFP applications were denied without prejudice because the complaint is frivolous and the IFP submissions do not adequately show inability to pay.
Plaintiff was granted 30 days to file an amended complaint complying with Rule 8/10 and an amended IFP application, or pay the filing fee; failure to comply could result in recommendation of dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint states a non-frivolous claim	Sharp alleged a federal-question ("#896; Arbitration") and attached a purported communication from defendant	Implicitly, defendant disputes nothing in the record; court found no factual or legal basis pleaded	Complaint is frivolous: fails to allege conduct violating law or causing harm
Whether federal jurisdiction exists	Sharp asserted federal-question jurisdiction but did not identify a federal statute or claim	No jurisdictional facts pleaded to show federal question or diversity	No plausible federal jurisdiction alleged; amended complaint must plead basis for federal jurisdiction
Whether IFP should be granted	Sharp applied for IFP twice	Court requires a non-frivolous complaint and adequate demonstration of inability to pay	IFP denied without prejudice because complaint is frivolous and IFP papers are inadequate
Whether leave to amend should be given	Sharp filed pro se; pro se status suggests liberal construction	Court must dismiss if amendment cannot cure defects but should generally allow cure	Court granted leave to amend within 30 days and provided specific pleading instructions

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolousness standard for pro se complaints)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art, 592 F.3d 954 (accept factual allegations unless baseless)
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (pro se complaints given liberal construction)
Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618 (court need not accept legal conclusions as true)
Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979 (court may reject implausible factual allegations)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (less stringent standard for pro se pleadings)
Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903 (dismissal only if no set of facts would entitle relief)
Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446 (pro se entitled to notice and opportunity to amend)
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (Rule 8 requires concise statement; courts should not guess at claims)
Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Linkline Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (amended complaint supersedes original)