Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Phelps v. Lockheed Missiles & Space

*fn* submitted: May 25, 1993.

RODNEY C. PHELPS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
LOCKHEED MISSILES & SPACE, CO., INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. CV-92-20080 JW (PVT). James Ware, District Judge, Presiding

Before: Hug, Wiggins, and Thompson, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

I

BACKGROUND

Appellant R.C. Phelps (Phelps) appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint against Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc. (Lockheed) in which he alleged that in terminating his employment Lockheed committed "prejudice, disclosure, blackmail, malpractice, fraud, and conspiracy with the intent to launch a failed satellite." Phelps has filed three other incoherent complaints against Lockheed, each of which were dismissed with prejudice after Phelps was permitted leave to amend.

The district court granted Lockheed's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim for relief pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Although the district court denied Lockheed's motion for sanctions in the form of an injunction to prevent Phelps from filing future actions against Lockheed, it did enjoin Phelps from filing an action without pre-filing review by a district court Judge.

Phelps argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint. We disagree and affirm.

II

Discussion

A. Motion to Dismiss

1. Failure to State Claim

We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Oscar v. University Students Co-operative Ass'n, 965 F.2d 783, 785 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 655 (1992). Dismissal of Phelps' complaint is only appropriate if he could prove no facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 88 (9th Cir. 1988).

Vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Id.; Ivey v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (dismissed pro se civil rights complaint because it lacked factual specificity). "We do not supply essential elements of a claim that were not initially pleaded." Richards, 864 F.2d at 88.

In this case, Phelps' complaint states only vague and conclusory allegations. It is difficult to ascertain from his complaint both the exact nature of his action and the federal jurisdiction upon which it is based. Furthermore, the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts in support of his claims. Even under our liberal standard for evaluating the dismissal of a pro se action, we affirm the district court's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.