Lindblad
Lindblad v. Livermore Chamber of Commerce
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ROBERT LINDBLAD, Case No. 21-cv-06464-WHO
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED
v. COMPLAINT
LIVERMORE CHAMBER OF Re: Dkt. Nos. 14, 15, 16 COMMERCE, et al., 11 Defendants.
12 Having reviewed plaintiff Robert Lindblad’s amended complaint, I hereby DISMISS the complaint for failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted. When a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”), as Lindblad is here, the court has a duty to dismiss a case when it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); see also Dkt. No. 4 (granting IFP status). Pro se pleadings are liberally construed; however, they still must allege facts sufficient to allow the court to determine whether a claim has been stated. See Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir.…