Smith v. Davis

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL 9 Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing the Action, and Directing the Clerk of Court to Close the Case signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/7/2025. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk AML)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CANDACE SMITH,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

KATHY DAVIS,

15

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:24-cv-0476 JLT EPG
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE
ACTION, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF
COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE
(Doc. 9)

16
17

Candace Smith seeks to hold Kathy Davis, her aunt, liable for several criminal acts including—

18

but not limited to— stalking, harassment, corrupting another with drugs, revenge pornography, child

19

abuse, false imprisonment, and theft in violation of criminal laws. (See generally Doc. 8.) Because

20

Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint

21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Doc. 9.)

22

The magistrate judge observed that Plaintiff does not allege Defendant “is a citizen of a

23

different state than Plaintiff,” and the allegations support a conclusion that Defendant “is not diverse

24

from Plaintiff because the FAC alleges that Davis’s conduct, including the theft of items from

25

Plaintiff’s home in California, has been ongoing for over 30 years.” (Doc. 9 at 5.) In addition, the

26

magistrate judge determined Plaintiff “fails to state facts to support jurisdiction based on the presence

27

of a federal question.” (Id.) The magistrate judge observed that except for “one reference to a violation

28

of domestic terrorism act,” Plaintiff “exclusively lists violations of the California Penal Code.” (Id.,
1

1

modifications adopted.) To the extent Plaintiff sought to state a claim for domestic terrorism, the

2

magistrate judge found no allegations to support such a violation. (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge

3

concluded the Court lacks jurisdiction, and recommended the Court dismiss the action for lack of

4

jurisdiction. (Id. at 6.)

5

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff at the only address on record

6

and notified her that any objections were due within 21 days. (Doc. 9 at 6.) However, the U.S. Postal

7

Service returned the Findings and Recommendations as “Undeliverable, RTS, Unable to Forward.” To

8

date, Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address. Nevertheless, service upon Plaintiff is

9

deemed fully effective. See Local Rule 182(f) (“Each ... pro se party is under a continuing duty to

10

notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address or telephone number of the attorney or

11

the pro se party. Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of the attorney or pro se

12

party shall be fully effective.”)

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

1.

The Findings and Recommendations dated November 25, 2024 (Doc. 9) are
ADOPTED in full.

17
18

2.

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

19

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 7, 2025

23
24
25
26
27
28
2