Inman v. Superior Court of California County of Stanislaus
Filing
3
ORDER Granting 2 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; DISMISSING Plaintiff's Complaint With Leave to Amend, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/25/12. Twenty Day Amended Complaint Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
RONALD INMAN,
9
CASE NO. 1: 12-cv-01049-AWI-BAM
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS; DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
10
11
vs.
12
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al.,
14
Defendants.
/
15
16
I.
17
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
On June 27, 2012, plaintiff Ronald Inman (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed
18
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) Having reviewed the in forma pauperis
19
application, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application.
20
II.
21
Screening Requirement
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
22
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
23
1915A(a); In re Arizona, 528 F.3d 652, 657 (9th Cir. 2008). A district court must identify
24
cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it “is frivolous,
25
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from
26
a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).
27
28
1
1
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
2
is entitled to relief . . ..” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but
3
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
4
do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
5
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient
6
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at
7
1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal
8
conclusion are not. Id. at 1949.
9
In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the well pled
10
allegations of the complaint in question (Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S.
11
738, 740 (1976)), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff
12
(Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff's favor
13
(Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969)). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to
14
state a claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint
15
can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal of a
16
pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot
17
prevail on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend would be futile. Lopez, at
18
1128.
19
III.
20
Complaint Allegations
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On June 27, 2012,
21
Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking an order commanding defendants Superior Court of California,
22
County of Stanislaus, Judge Donald Shaver and Judge John Whiteside (collectively, “Defendants”)
23
to comply with California Rule of Court 4.551 and a previous order of the California Court of
24
Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District. Plaintiff also seeks damages “in the amount of no less than
25
$10,000.00.” Plaintiff does not articulate any causes of action or legal grounds for relief.
26
IV.
27
28
Discussion
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief.
Plaintiff shall be given the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies
2
1
described by the Court in this order.
2
A.
3
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
Plaintiff’s Complaint Fails to Comply With Rule 8
4
is entitled to relief . . ..” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A pleading may not simply allege a wrong has been
5
committed and demand relief. The underlying requirement is that a pleading give “fair notice” of the
6
claim being asserted and the “grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48, 78
7
S.Ct. 99, 103 (1957); Yamaguchi v. United States Department of AirForce, 109 F.3d 1475, 1481(9th
8
Cir. 1997). Although a complaint need not outline all elements of a claim, “[i]t must be possible ...
9
for an inference to be drawn that these elements exist.” Walker v. South Central Bell Telephone Co.,
10
904 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1990); Lewis v. ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-406 (6th
11
Cir. 1998). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt facts which
12
defendant engaged in to support plaintiff's claim. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646,
13
649 (9th Cir. 1984).
14
Generally, the Court is lenient and liberally construes pro se pleadings. Plaintiff’s
15
Complaint, however, does not contain any causes of action, nor does it provide a legal or factual
16
basis for relief. Rather, Plaintiff’s Complaint, in four conclusory sentences, states the Stanislaus
17
Superior Court and two Superior Court Judges have failed to follow the California Rules of Civil
18
Procedure and the orders of a California Appellate Court. This is insufficient to state a claim for
19
relief under Rule 8's liberal pleading standards. Yamaguchi, 109 F.3d at 1481.
20
B.
21
In order to state a claim in a United States District Court, Plaintiff must establish federal
22
jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject
23
matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases in which the United States
24
Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511
25
U.S. 375, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1677 (1994). Generally, these cases involve diversity of citizenship (in
26
which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and is between citizens of
27
different states), or a federal question, or to which the United States is a party. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
28
and 1332; See also, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed.
Jurisdiction
3
1
2d 391 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 2008, 104 L. Ed. 2d 593
2
(1989).
3
Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions, and the burden to
4
establish the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; 114
5
S.Ct. at 1677. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the court sua
6
sponte. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-595 (9th Cir.
7
1996). “Nothing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what
8
its power rests upon. Without jurisdiction it is nothing.” In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th
9
Cir.1988).
10
Plaintiff has failed to establish that federal jurisdiction exists. Indeed, Plaintiff has not
11
alleged any causes of action to establish the Court’s basis of jurisdiction. The Complaint does not
12
allege that the parties are citizens of different states. Moreover, even if Plaintiff sufficiently alleged
13
complete diversity between the parties - something Plaintiff cannot do as all involved parties are
14
California residents - Plaintiff specifically alleges the amount in controversy is $10,000.00.
15
C.
16
The Superior Court for the County of Stanislaus, and its judges, are an arm of the state and
Defendants Have Eleventh Amendment Immunity
17
thus under the Eleventh Amendment cannot be sued in federal court. See, e.g., Simmons v.
18
Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156,1161 (9th Cir.2003) (11th Amendment bars suit
19
against state superior court and its employees); Hyland v. Wonder, 117 F.3d 405, 413 (9th Cir.),
20
amended, 127 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 1997) (state case law and constitutional provisions make clear that
21
California Superior Court is state agency); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995)
22
(California municipal court is arm of state protected from lawsuit by 11th Amendment immunity);
23
Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 & n. 10 (9th Cir. 1987)
24
(11th Amendment bars suit against Superior Court of State of California regardless of relief sought).
25
D.
26
Plaintiff's claims against the defendant judges are barred. State judges are absolutely immune
27
from civil liability for damages for acts performed in their judicial capacity. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S.
28
547, 553–55, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967) (applying judicial immunity to actions under 42
Judicial Immunity Bars Plaintiff’s Claims
4
1
U.S.C. § 1983). Judicial immunity is an immunity from suit for damages, not just from an ultimate
2
assessment of damages. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411
3
(1985). As long as the judge has jurisdiction to perform the “general act” in question, he or she is
4
immune, however erroneous the act may have been, however injurious the consequences of the act
5
may have been, and irrespective of the judge's claimed motivation. Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d
6
1008, 1012 (9th Cir. 2000).
7
E.
8
The Court has screened Plaintiff’s filing as a Complaint. However, because Plaintiff has not
9
The Court lacks Jurisdiction to Compel Action By State Employees
presented any causes of action or legal claims for relief, and because the primary relief sought
10
appears to be an order commanding action by the Defendants, the Court may appropriately view
11
Plaintiff’s pleading as a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The federal mandamus statute grants
12
district courts jurisdiction “to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency
13
thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
14
The Court lack subject matter jurisdiction of such a Petition because this case does not
15
involve “an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof,” but rather, an officer or
16
employee of the state of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1361; see also, Newton v. Poindexter, 578 F.Supp.
17
277, 279 (E.D. Cal.1984). The Court lacks mandamus jurisdiction over a petition seeking to compel
18
action by a state employee. See, Demos v. United States District Court for the E. Dist. of Wash., 925
19
F.2d 1160, 1161–2 (9th Cir. 1991) (A Petition for Writ of Mandate in a federal court which seeks an
20
order directed to a state court is frivolous as a matter of law).
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
/././
28
/././
5
1
CONCLUSION
2
For the reasons set forth above, the Court Orders as follows:
3
1.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application; and
4
2.
The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff
5
SHALL file an amended complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of service of
6
this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this
7
Order, this action will be dismissed WITH PREJUDICE, for failure to state a claim.
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k
July 25, 2012
/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?