Williford v. Hall

Filing 20

ORDER GRANTING 9 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/19/2015. Amended Complaint due within 30 days. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD WILLIFORD,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

PHILLIP HALL,
Defendant.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00868 - KJM - JLT
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING THE
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
(Doc. 9)

17

Phillip Hall seeks dismissal of the complaint filed by Richard Williford pursuant to Rule

18

12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 9.) Because Plaintiff fails to

19

allege facts sufficient for the Court to determine that it has jurisdiction over the complaint and Plaintiff

20

fails to identify a claim or state facts sufficient for the Court to determine he has suffered any harm,

21

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

22

I.

23

Factual and Procedural History
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on April 27, 2015. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff alleges

24

Phillip Hall is employed by Kern County Counsel, and gave instructions to the Mountain Meadows

25

Community Services District without having the authority to do so. (Id. at 1.) According to Plaintiff,

26

Hall recites “laws and their meanings” to the Board of the Mountain Meadows Community Services

27

District and seems to claim that by doing so Hall “usurped into the operation of (MMCSD).” (Id. at 1-

28

2.) Plaintiff asserts Hall’s “actions have caused financial harm to the District.” (Id. at 2.) Therefore,
1

1

Plaintiff seeks to have Hall “cease his actions of aggression toward Mountain Meadows Community

2

Services District” and to have Hall’s “license to practice law revoked.” (Id.)
Defendant filed the motion to dismiss now pending before the Court on May 15, 2015. (Doc. 9.)

3
4

In response, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Summary Judgment”1 and an “answer to Motion to Dismiss.”

5

(Docs. 10-11.) The Court found the matter suitable for decision without oral argument and, as a result,

6

took the matter under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) on June 15, 2015.

7

II.

Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)

8

A.

9

The district court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and is empowered only to hear disputes

10

“authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377

11

(1994); Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). The federal courts are

12

“presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case, unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” A-Z Int’l.

13

v. Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, a plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating

14

the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 (citing McNutt v. General Motors

15

Acceptance Corp, 298 U.S. 178, 182-83 (1936)); Vacek v. United States Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248,

16

1250 (9th Cir. 2006).

17

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may challenge a

18

claim for relief for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) “may

19

either attack the allegations of the complaint or may be made as a ‘speaking motion’ attacking the

20

existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact.” Thornhill Pub. Co., Inc. v. Gen. Tel. & Electronics

21

Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735 (1947)). Thus, “[a]

22

jurisdictional challenge under Rule 12(b)(1) may be made either on the face of the pleadings or by

23

presenting extrinsic evidence.” Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir.

24

2003) (citing White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000)). The Ninth Circuit explained:

25
26
27
28

In a facial attack, the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint are
insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction. By contrast, in a factual attack,
the challenger disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise
1

The “Motion for Summary Judgment” clearly fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 56 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Given that its contents are relevant to the motion filed by Defendant, the Court construes
Plaintiff’s “motion” to be further opposition to the motion to dismiss.

2

invoke federal jurisdiction.

1
2

Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2004). On a motion to dismiss under

3

Rule 12(b)(1), the standards that must be applied by the Court vary according to the nature of the

4

jurisdictional challenge.

5

B.

Discussion and Analysis

6

Where, as here, a defendant presents a facial challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court

7

must presume the truth of the Plaintiff’s factual allegations “and draw all reasonable inferences in his

8

favor.” Doe v. Holy, 557 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009); Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch. Dist.

9

No. 205, 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1009 (2004). The Court

10

should not “assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual

11

allegations.” W. Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).
Significantly, Plaintiff does not identify the claim or claims upon which he seeks to proceed in

12
13

this action. (See Doc. 1.) The compliant seems to indicate Plaintiff believes that Hall improperly

14

meddled in the district’s affairs without the authority to do so. In Plaintiff’s “motion for summary

15

judgment,” he asserts “this case pertains to civil rights being violated by Defendant.” (Doc. 10 at 1.)

16

However, Plaintiff fails to identify what civil rights he believes were violated or whose civil rights are

17

at issue. Because the allegations of the complaint are not sufficiently clear for the Court to determine

18

whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the action, Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to

19

Rule 12(b)(1) is GRANTED.

20

III.

Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

21

A.

22

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion “tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d

23

729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate when “the complaint lacks a

24

cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v.

25

Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, under Rule 12(b)(6), “review is

26

limited to the complaint alone.” Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274 (9th Cir. 1993).

27
28

Legal Standard

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
3

1

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The Supreme Court explained,

2

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks
for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a
complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant=s liability, it “stops
short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’”

3
4
5
6

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal citations, quotation marks omitted). Further, allegations in a complaint

7

must be accepted as true when the Court considers a motion to dismiss. Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex

8

Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976).

9

A court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all

10

doubts in favor of the plaintiff. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). “The issue is not

11

whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the claimant is entitled to officer evidence to

12

support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote

13

and unlikely but that is not the test.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Therefore, the

14

Court “will dismiss any claim that, even when construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, fails to

15

plead sufficiently all required elements of a cause of action.” Student Loan Marketing Assoc. v.

16

Hanes, 181 F.R.D. 629, 634 (S.D. Cal. 1998).

17

B.

Discussion and Analysis

18

As noted above, Plaintiff fails to identify any causes of action his complaint, and the facts

19

alleged are too sparse for the Court to determine the claim(s) upon which Plaintiff seeks to proceed.

20

Plaintiff asserts Defendant has taken “efforts to take control of Mount Meadows Community Service

21

District and to push Plaintiff from the position of General Manager of MMCSD.” (Doc. 10 at 3.)

22

Further, in responding to this motion, Plaintiff argues that “Defendant abused his power by removing

23

seated board member James Crow.” (Doc. 11 at 10.) However, Plaintiff fails to make these allegations

24

in his complaint, or explain how Defendant’s actions caused Plaintiff harm. See, e.g., Rizzo v. Goode,

25

423 U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976) (to proceed on a claim for civil rights violations, a plaintiff must allege a

26

specific injury was suffered, and show causal relationship between the defendant’s conduct and the

27

injury suffered).

28
4

“[T]o satisfy Article III's standing requirements, a plaintiff must show (1)[he] has suffered an

1
2

‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or

3

hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is

4

likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”

5

Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000). The burden of

6

establishing standing falls upon the plaintiff. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992);

7

see also Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 167 (1997) (“each element of Article III standing must be

8

supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e.,

9

with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation”). The Ninth

10

Circuit explained the causation element is not satisfied when an “injury caused by a third party is too

11

tenuously connected to the acts of the defendant.” Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dept. of Agric.,

12

341 F.3d 961, 975 (9th Cir.2003).
Here, though it appears that Plaintiff feels that Hall has taken some wrongful action related to

13
14

the operation of the District and even assuming this resulted in damage suffered by the District,

15

Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate he has suffered an injury inflicted by Hall.

16

Consequently, because the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint are insufficient to give Defendant fair

17

notice of the claims against him, the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is GRANTED.

18

IV.

Conclusion and Order
Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate the Court has subject matter jurisdiction

19
20

over his claims, to allege facts sufficient to provide the defendant with fair notice of the claims against

21

him or to demonstrate Plaintiff has standing. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

22

Because it is not “absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured,” Plaintiff

23

will be given leave to amend his complaint. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir.

24

1987).

25

The amended complaint must reference the docket number of assigned to this case and must be

26

labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the

27

original complaint. Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814

28

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). The amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference
5

1

to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220, emphasis added. Thus, once Plaintiff files an

2

amended complaint, Plaintiff’s original complaint will not serve any function in the case.

3

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

4

1.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED;

5

2.

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend;

6

3.

Plaintiff’s “motion” (Doc. 10) is construed as further opposition to Defendant’s motion,
and is MOOT;

7
8

4.

service of this order.

9
10
11

Plaintiff SHALL file his First Amended Complaint within thirty days of the date of

Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the matter be
dismissed.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 19, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6