Latronica v. Lynch et al
Filing
11
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 10 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint be DISMISSED, Without Leave to Amend, and 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction be DENIED AS MOOT signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/7/2016. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MELANIE C. LATRONICA,
Plaintiff,
10
11
Case No. 1:16-cv-01352-LJO-SAB
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO
AMEND AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION AS MOOT
v.
12
MERRILL LYNCH, et al.,
13
Defendants.
(ECF Nos. 9, 10)
14
15
Plaintiff Melanie Latronica, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action on
16 September 12, 2016. On September 26, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with
17 leave to amend. (ECF No. 5.) On September 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint dated
18 September 23, 2016, and therefore, it was filed prior to Plaintiff receiving the Court’s order
19 dismissing the complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 6.) On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff
20 filed a notice that she had received the Court’s order dismissing her complaint and that she
21 would be filing an amended complaint. (ECF No. 8.) On October 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a first
22 amended complaint (“FAC”) and a motion for injunction. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) For the reasons
23 discussed below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed
24 without leave to amend and that Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction be denied as moot.
25
I.
26
SCREENING STANDARD
27
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss a case if at any time the Court
28 determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In
1
1 determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading standard
2 used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a short and plain
3 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
4 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
5 of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
6 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim
7
8 to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
9 570). “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability .
10 . . ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Iqbal,
11 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as
12 true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal
13 conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
14
II.
15
DISCUSSION
The operative complaint in this action is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed on
16
17 October 21, 2016, which superseded any prior complaints.1 In her first amended complaint,
18 Plaintiff seeks an order directing Defendants and persons who are committing violations against
19 Plaintiff to stop. (FAC at 7.) 2 Plaintiff seeks an injunction, protective order, and restraining
20 order to restore her to her original self. (FAC at 3.) Plaintiff names numerous defendants,
21 including many private companies. (FAC at 1-2, 3.)
All of Plaintiff’s filings contain similar incoherent statements.
22
The allegations in
23 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint are largely nonsensical. For example, Plaintiff alleges that
24 “[t]he claim against the defendants is for torture; Para-Sagittal Plane and Velocity Servo
25 Systems; all forms of control systems, CT systems, dynamics, integration systems, half’s, (CDS)
26
27
28
1
As Plaintiff is pro per, the Court construes Plaintiff’s filings liberally. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s September
27, 2016 filing was superseded by the October 21, 2016 first amended complaint. Nevertheless, the Court has
reviewed the September 27, 2016 filing, and it also does not state any cognizable claims.
2
Page numbers refer to CM/ECF page numbers that are stamped at the top of the pages.
2
1 ID. Identity theft, and Unfair Business Practices, LTD, LLC, Limited Partnerships, etc.” (FAC
2 at 1, ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff states:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-COMPLAINT:
Chattels, chattel paper, chattel note, chattel mortgage,
movables, UX’S sex slaves, Security Instrument, Water Assets, Intangibles,
Tangibles, General Tangibles, Fixed 3 Assets Good Will Accounting,
Fixtures. (Facts in support of underlying Claims).
Pins and Possessory Interest, CT Systems, Mercantile Acceptance.
Homestead Declarants, Fixed – Virtual internal external and dynamic
attachments. (complexity).
Deprivation of Rights, Deprived of life, Liberty, Freedom secured by the
Amendments and the Federal and State Laws and the Constitution, (Membrane
info:) to add.
Ownership and Intellectual property ownership: Chattel Slavery in all it’s
forms.
11 FAC at 3 (emphasis in original).
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff also states:
The person and or persons in the UX (girlses) bodies when
Plaintiff ISNOT is destroying them and doing God Forbid. These
people started the UX torture in the beginning of 2012 after
they stole 41 years. *Solar Torture see info eye, core, bridge,
nasal.*
16 FAC at 2 (emphasis in original).
17
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations are largely incomprehensible, fanciful, and fail
18 to state a cognizable claim.
19
“Generally, Rule 15 advises the court that ‘leave [to amend the complaint] shall be freely
20 given when justice so requires.’
This policy is ‘to be applied with extreme liberality.’”
21 Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Owens v.
22 Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). The factors the Court
23 should consider in deciding whether to grant leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith or
24 dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
25 previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the
26 amendment, and futility of the amendment. Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052.
27
The Court previously informed Plaintiff of the deficiencies in her complaint and
28 Plaintiff’s amendment failed to cure those deficiencies. Accordingly, the Court finds that further
3
1 allowance of amendment would be futile.
2
III.
3
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMNEDATION
Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any
4
5 cognizable claims. The Court further finds that leave to amend should be denied because
6 amendment would be futile. As Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed, this Court finds that
7 Plaintiff’s motion for injunction should be denied as moot.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint
8
9 be dismissed, without leave to amend. Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s
10 motion for injunction be denied as moot.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this
11
12 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30)
13 days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings
14 and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be
15 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district
16 judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
17 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
18 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)
19 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 Dated:
November 7, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?