Smith v. Novoa

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING #7 Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing the Action without Prejudice, and Directing the Clerk of Court to Close the Case signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 03/26/2024. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CANDACE SMITH,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
DANNETTE NOVOA,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:24-cv-0199 JLT SKO
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE
ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND
DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE
THE CASE
(Doc. 7)

16
17

Candace Smith seeks to hold Dannette Novoa liable for “attempted vehicular manslaughter”

18

under the California Penal Code. (See Doc. 1 at 5.) Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis,

19

the magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Doc. 7.)

20

The magistrate judge noted Plaintiff’s sole claim is under state law, and “[s]uch criminal claims

21

may not be pursued in a civil lawsuit.” (Doc. 7 at 5, quoting Grimes v. A1-Auto Care, 2022 WL

22

959273, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2022).) In addition, the magistrate judge found there is not complete

23

diversity between the parties, because “Plaintiff alleges she and Defendant are citizens of California.”

24

(Id., citing Doc. 1 at 4.) Thus, the magistrate judge concluded the Court lacks subject matter

25

jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction over the action. (Id. at 6.) The magistrate judge determined that

26

“amendment would be futile because there is no set of facts Plaintiff could allege in an amended

27

complaint to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over her claim.” (Id.) Consequently, the magistrate

28

judge recommended the “action be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend.” (Id.)
1

1

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified her that any

2

objections were due within 21 days. (Doc. 7 at 6.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file

3

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson

4

v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do

5

so has passed.

6

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.

7

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are

8

supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

9

1.

The Findings and Recommendations dated (Doc. 7) are ADOPTED in full.

10

2.

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

11

3.

Leave to amend is DENIED as futile.

12

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 26, 2024

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2