Phanvongkham et al v. Moultrie

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING Complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/6/16. Amended Complaint Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

SISOMPHONE PHANVONGKHAM and
FELICIA NAVARRO,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

v.

Case No. 1:16-cv-1032-LJO-BAM
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
(ECF No. 1)

MELISSA MOULTRIE,

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiffs Sisomphone Phanvongkham and Felicia Navarro are proceeding pro se and have

17

been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (ECF Nos. 2, 3). Plaintiffs’ initial

18

complaint is currently before the Court for screening.

19

A.

Screening Requirement and Standard

20

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro per. 28

21

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiffs’ Complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is

22

frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks

23

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

24

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

25

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not

26

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

27

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937,

28

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65
1

1

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge

2

unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)

3

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

4

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any

5

doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-1123 (9th Cir. 2012),

6

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but to survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims

7

must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably

8

infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129

9

S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969

10

(9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere

11

consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678,

12

129 S.Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Summary of Plaintiffs’ Allegations

13

B.

14

Plaintiffs’ allegations in the complaint are unclear, and it is difficult to discern the precise

15

claims Plaintiffs are seeking to raise against the Defendant and the factual allegations that support

16

those claims. For example, at the outset of their Complaint, Plaintiffs treat the Court to a several

17

page discussion about cockroaches, including that:

18
19
20
21

In the cockroach’s case, as it looked at a video screen depicting the forest, it
moved across frictionless, hollow foam ball. As the roach ran, it turned the balls,
and two image sensors taken from a computer mouse track the ball’s rotations.
Those sensors were connected to the VR-controlling computer via USB cable,
feeding the roach’s movements into the computer system so that the screen
changes in sync.

22
23
24
25
26

Compl. at pg 2-3.
Despite best efforts, the Court is unable to determine how Plaintiffs musings about
computer controlled cockroaches relates to an actual legal claim. Plaintiffs’ complaint continues
with additional vague and confusing allegations including that:

27
28
2

1

8

That Respondent slumlord Melissa Moultrie landlord properties management for
Gsf Properties INC & Co-Partnership (FHA) Fresno Housing Authorities mailed
forward back legal court documents of service notice on hearing for “court mint
order” against respondents slumlord parties for (3)times (FTA) no appearances
time at 8:30am in dept. 401, is guilty of Penal Code 1320.5 failure to appear even
though there was no specific court order requiring her to appear. The letter to her
lawyer is considered enough to establish that Slumlord “melissa moultrie” was
required to appear. (“See also Penal Code 1170(h) PC.(“(h)(1) Except as provided
in paragraph (3), a felony punishable pursuant to this subdivision where the term is
not specified in the underlying offense shall be punishable by a term of
imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or two or three years.” ) § 26. No
inference (a) Freedom Act.—

9

Compl. at pg. 7.

2
3
4
5
6
7

10

Affording these allegations the most liberal reading possible, Plaintiffs appear to allege

11

that Defendant Melissa Moultrie failed to appear at a hearing in state court causing dismissal of

12

that proceeding, “without prejudice.” Complaint at pg. 7.

13

As stated currently, Plaintiffs’ claims can only be characterized as a collection of

14

unrelated statements unaccompanied by actual legal claims. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs will be given

15

an opportunity to amend their complaint. The Court provides the following information below to

16

assist Plaintiffs with filing an amended complaint.

17

C.

18

Based on the limited information in the complaint, it appears that the Plaintiffs cannot

19

establish that federal jurisdiction is proper. Federal courts can only adjudicate cases authorized

20

by the United States Constitution and Congress. Generally, this includes cases in which: 1)

21

diversity of citizenship is established (the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between

22

citizens of different states), 2) a federal question is presented, or 3) the United States is a party.

23

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332; See also, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994);

24

Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 2008 (1989).

Lack of Jurisdiction

25

Here, Plaintiffs have not properly alleged diversity of citizenship. Plaintiffs live at 1934

26

W. Michigan Ave. Fresno, California 93705. Plaintiffs are therefore domiciled in, and are citizens

27

of, the State of California. Plaintiffs, however, have not alleged the citizenship of Defendant

28
3

1

Melissa Moultrie. Plaintiff must allege the basis for federal jurisdiction.

2

Moreover, based on the allegations that Defendant may be involved in other litigation in

3

the Fresno County Superior Court, there are no allegations in the Complaint from which the court

4

could infer that the Defendant is not a California citizen. If this is indeed the case, diversity

5

jurisdiction cannot be established because there is an absence of complete diversity between the

6

parties. Similarly, Plaintiffs have not presented a federal question, or named the United States as a

7

party. Plaintiffs are advised that any amended complaint must allege facts that establish this

8

Court’s jurisdiction.

9

D.

Claims Failing to Satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

10

Plaintiffs’ Complaint also does not comply with the standards of Rule 8. It is confusing,

11

convoluted, and fails to set forth the facts in a comprehensible manner. The Complaint fails to

12

clearly articulate the facts giving rise to any claim nor does it specifically identify a constitutional

13

harm inflicted by the Defendant.

14

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a complaint include a “short

15

and plain statement of the claim,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and that each allegation “be simple,

16

concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1) (emphasis added). A complaint that is so confusing

17

that its “'true substance, if any, is well disguised’” may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8.

18

Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gillibeau

19

v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969)); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d

20

1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Something labeled a complaint but written . . . prolix in evidentiary

21

detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what

22

wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins.

23

Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming a dismissal with prejudice for failure to

24

comply with Rules 8(a) and 8(e), finding that both the original complaint and an amended

25

complaint were “verbose, confusing and conclusory”).

26

In this case, Plaintiffs’ complaint does not list any causes of action, nor does it identify

27

any relief requested. Instead, the complaint merely makes an accusation that Defendant willfully

28

failed to appear for a Court date. Thus, the requirements of Rule 8 are not satisfied. In Plaintiffs’
4

1

amended complaint, they must clearly allege facts that outline their claims. As noted above, a

2

complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

3

entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

4

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

5

statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

6

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

7

‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.

8

E.

Rule 10(b)

9

Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also requires a plaintiff to state claims

10

in “numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed.

11

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Moreover, “[i]f doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a

12

separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). It

13

is not the responsibility of the Court to review a narrative in an attempt to determine the nature of

14

a Plaintiffs’ claims. Thus, Plaintiffs’ complaint style and formatting fails to comply with Rule

15

10(b). Plaintiffs’ amended complaint must therefore comply with Rule 10(b).

16

F.

17

Finally, it appears that Plaintiffs are attempting to challenge actions occurring in state

18

court through the filing of this action. However, this district court has no authority to review such

19

proceedings of the state courts. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Company, 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct.

20

149, 68 L. Ed. 362 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482,

21

(1983). “[L]ower federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review a case litigated and decided in

22

state court; only the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to correct state court

23

judgments.” Gottfried v. Medical Planning Services, 142 F.3d 326, 330 (6th Cir.), cert. denied,

24

525 U.S. 1041, 119 S. Ct. 592, 142 L. Ed. 2d 534 (1998); see also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334

25

F.3d 895, 901 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Stated plainly, Rooker—Feldman bars any suit that seeks to

26

disrupt or ‘undo’ a prior state-court judgment, regardless of whether the state-court proceeding

27

afforded the federal-court plaintiff a full and fair opportunity to litigate her claims.”).

28

Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek Court intervention for actions occurring in
5

1

state court, Plaintiffs seek relief this Court cannot provide.

2

G.

Conclusion and Order

3

Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to assert facts which could establish subject matter jurisdiction,

4

and additionally, it fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. As Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se,

5

they will be given a final opportunity to amend their complaint to cure the deficiencies identified

6

above. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs may not change the nature

7

of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d

8

605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).

9

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what

10

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556

11

U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must

12

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555

13

(citations omitted).

14

Finally, Plaintiffs are advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original

15

complaint. Lacey, 693 F.3d at 927. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ amended complaint must be “complete

16

in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220.

17

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1.

19
20
21
22

Plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed with leave to amend for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;
2.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiffs shall file a

first amended complaint; and
3.

If Plaintiffs fail to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this

23

order, this action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a

24

claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 6, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
6