Smith v. HSBC et. al., No. 3:2015cv00264 - Document 18 (D. Or. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's Complaint is Dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 6/24/15 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (gm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. HSBC et. al. Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON RONNIE VANCE SMITH, Plaintiff, 3:15-CV-264-PK OPINION AND ORDER v. HSBC BANK, Defendant. SIMON, District Judge: Plaintiff pro se Ronnie Vance Smith filed this action in Jonna pauper is against defendant HSBC Bank1 on Februmy 13, 2015. On February 24, 2015, noting that it was entirely unclear 1 By and through his complaint (#2), his motion (#3) for temporaty restraining order, and his so-styled notice (#4) of pendency of action, Smith identifies the defendant(s) in his action as "HSBC Bank et al.," but nowhere identifies any defendant other than HSBC Bank. In his application to proceed informa pauperis, where directed to "Enter full name of ALL defendant(s)" Smith listed only HSBC Bank as a defendant. On that basis, I conclude that HSBC Bank is the sole named defendant in this action. Dockets.Justia.com what claim or claims Smith intended to bring against the defendant, Judge Papak ordered Smith to show cause within thhiy days why his action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and in the alternative to amend his complaint to clearly state one or more claims. On March 13, 2015, Judge Papak granted Smith's motion for extension of time to amend his pleading, ordering that Smith file his amended complaint on or before May 12, 2015. On May 12, 2015, Judge Papak granted Smith's second motion for extension of time to amend his pleading, ordering that Smith file his amended complaint on or before June 12, 2015. That latter deadline has now passed, and the court has received no response to Judge Papak's order to show cause. In connection with proceedings in Jonna pauperis such as this, the district courts are obliged to dismiss sua sponte actions failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted: Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that- ** * (B) the action ... *** (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted .... 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e)(2). Because it is not possible to dete1mine from Smith's allegations what claim or claims Smith may intend to state, or indeed that Smith has any valid claim that may lie against the named defendant, his action is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Moreover, Smith has failed to respond to Judge Papak's order to show cause within the time allotted for so doing. For the reasons discussed in Judge Papak's order (#8) to show cause, Smith's action is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). CONCLUSION For the reasons set fo1th above, Smith's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. DATED this 24th day of June, 2015. Honorable Michael Simon United States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
