Opinion
22-cv-02935-JD
01-12-2023
YAROSLAV MALEV, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS
JAMES DONATO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pro se plaintiff Yaroslav Malev filed a form complaint in the San Francisco Superior Court naming the FBI as a defendant. Dkt. No. 1-1. The complaint contains no factual allegations and does not identify a cause of action. Id. Malev checked boxes in the form complaint indicating that the case concerns “injury to person or damage to personal property” and “professional negligence,” and that he suffered “wage loss,” “loss of use of property,” and “loss of earning capacity.” Id. at 4, 6. The complaint does not appear to have been properly served on the federal government.
As the only proper defendant for a tort claim against the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679, the United States removed the case to this Court on May 18, 2022. Dkt. No. 1. It has asked to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 6. Dismissal is granted.
As a pro se plaintiff, Malev gets a liberal construction of the complaint and the benefit of any doubts, but he still must satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and state facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. Nguyen Gardner v. Chevron Cap. Corp., No. 15-cv-01514-JD, 2015 WL 12976114, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2015). The main problem here is that there is nothing to construe, liberally or otherwise, because the form complaint does not have any meaningful content.
Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. The Court has considerable doubt that allowing amendment is a worthwhile pursuit. Even so, leave to file an amended complaint that is consistent with this order is granted. The amended complaint must be filed by February 1, 2023. A failure to meet this deadline or otherwise comply with this order will result in a dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.