Decker v. Reynolds et al
Filing
10
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/3/11 ORDERING that 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED; it is RECOMMENDED that 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend; and this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
KEVIN L. DECKER,
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
R.J. REYNOLDS, et al.,
ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.
15
16
No. CIV S-11-0660 LKK DAD PS
/
Plaintiff Kevin Decker, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with this action. The
17
case has been referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 72-302(c)(21) and 28
18
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
19
A filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil action in a federal district
20
court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The court may authorize the commencement of an action without
21
prepayment of fees or security therefor by a litigant who submits an affidavit demonstrating an
22
inability to pay, allowing the litigant to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
23
Plaintiff is advised that a prisoner who brings a civil action in forma pauperis is required to pay
24
the full amount of the filing fee in installments when funds are available in his prison trust
25
account. An initial partial filing fee would be assessed if plaintiff had any deposits in his account
26
or if he had a monthly balance in the account in any month during the six months preceding the
1
1
filing of this case. Plaintiff’s custodian would be ordered to collect fees from plaintiff’s account
2
and mail them to this court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The custodian would be
3
required to continue sending available amounts until the $350.00 filing fee is paid in full, even if
4
this case is closed before the full amount is paid.
5
Moreover, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the complaint at
6
any time if the court determines that the pleading is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
7
on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. A
8
complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v.
9
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir.
10
1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a complaint as frivolous where it is based on an
11
indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
12
490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
13
To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough
14
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
15
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court
16
accepts as true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light
17
most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg.
18
Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242,
19
1245 (9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by
20
lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as
21
true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western
22
Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).
23
The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:
24
A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a
short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s
jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a
demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.
25
26
2
1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
2
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a
3
complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and allege facts that state
4
the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v. Community
5
Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and
6
conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.’ Nor does a
7
complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancements.’”
8
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, ---, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
9
555, 557. A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the
10
defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649.
11
Here, plaintiff’s complaint is deficient in several respects. First, plaintiff’s
12
complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s
13
jurisdiction depends.1 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may adjudicate only
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
Moreover, it is not apparent from plaintiff’s complaint that the Eastern District of
California is the appropriate venue for this action. The federal venue statute provides that:
(a) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship
may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district
where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a
judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action
is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal
jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the
action may otherwise be brought.
(b) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of
citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law be brought only in (1) a
judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same
State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the
subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant
may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
25
26
28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)-(b). In his complaint, plaintiff fails to address where the parties reside or
where the alleged events occurred.
3
1
those cases authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377
2
(1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37 (1992).2 “Federal courts are presumed to
3
lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4
4
F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534,
5
546 (1986)). Because of the presumptive lack of jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s complaint is required
6
to contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ.
7
P. 8(a). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time during the
8
proceedings. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir.
9
1996). Moreover, the burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon plaintiff as the party
10
asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; see also Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 543
11
(1974) (acknowledging that a claim may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if it is “so
12
insubstantial, implausible, . . . or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal
13
controversy within the jurisdiction of the District Court”); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83
14
(1946) (recognizing that a claim is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction where it is
15
“wholly insubstantial and frivolous” and so patently without merit as to justify dismissal for lack
16
of jurisdiction ); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that even
17
“[a] paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer federal subject matter
18
jurisdiction . . . and may be dismissed sua sponte before service of process.”).
19
20
Second, plaintiff’s complaint is drafted on the form used by prisoners seeking to
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.3 Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that,
21
[e]very person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
22
23
2
24
Congress has conferred jurisdiction upon the federal district courts as limited by the
United States Constitution. U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2; 28 U.S.C. § 132; Ankenbrandt v. Richards,
504 U.S. 689, 697-99 (1992).
25
3
26
Though plaintiff makes no mention of § 1983 in his complaint, in a letter filed with the
court on May 15, 2011, plaintiff refers to this action as a § 1983 lawsuit. (Doc. No. 6.)
4
1
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
2
3
In order to state a cognizable claim under § 1983 the plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating
4
that he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that
5
the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487
6
U.S. 42, 48 (1988). It is the plaintiff’s burden in bringing a claim under § 1983 to allege, and
7
ultimately establish, that the named defendants were acting under color of state law when they
8
deprived him of a federal right. Lee v. Katz, 276 F.3d 550, 553-54 (9th Cir. 2002).
9
Here, plaintiff has sued two private entities, R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris.
10
Moreover, plaintiff does not allege that either defendant was acting under color of state law when
11
they allegedly deprived him of a federally protected right.
12
Third, in his complaint plaintiff merely alleges that his mother smoked Kool
13
cigarettes and acquired lung cancer which ultimately caused her death. That is the extent of
14
plaintiff’s factual allegations. To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must
15
allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
16
570. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint
17
must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and must allege facts that state the
18
elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Jones, 733 F.2d at 649.
19
“A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of
20
cause of action will not do.’ Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid
21
of ‘further factual enhancements.’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555,
22
557). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the
23
defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649.
24
Finally, it is appears from plaintiff’s complaint that he is seeking to pursue a
25
survival action on behalf of his deceased mother. The party seeking to bring a survival action
26
bears the burden of demonstrating that a particular state law authorizes such an action and that
5
1
the plaintiff meets that state’s requirements for bringing a survival action. Moreland v. Las
2
Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 159 F.3d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff’s complaint does
3
not address any state law with respect to survival actions, whether or not his mother left a will or
4
its terms, or whether his mother left a surviving spouse, domestic partner, or other children
5
impacted by a potential survival action.
6
7
For all the reasons cited above, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
8
9
The undersigned has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend his
complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. “Valid reasons for denying leave to
10
amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg.
11
Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988). See also Klamath-Lake
12
Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that
13
while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments).
14
In light of the obvious deficiencies noted above, the court finds that it would be futile to grant
15
plaintiff leave to amend.
16
Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is
17
informed that federal district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent
18
plaintiffs in civil cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The
19
court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under the federal in forma pauperis statute,
20
but only under exceptional circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935
21
F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).
22
The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of
23
success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his or her claims. See Wilborn v.
24
Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.
25
1983). As noted above, the undersigned will recommend that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed,
26
/////
6
1
meaning that it is unlikely that he will succeed on the merits of his claims. Plaintiff’s request for
2
the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.
3
4
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s March 10, 2011 motion
for the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 2) is denied.
5
IT IS RECOMMENDED that:
6
1. Plaintiff’s March 10, 2011 complaint (Doc. No. 1) be dismissed without leave
7
to amend; and
8
2. This action be dismissed.
9
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States
10
District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
11
fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file
12
written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections
13
to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
14
objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal
15
the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
16
DATED: November 3, 2011.
17
18
19
20
DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.prose\decker0660.ifp.f&rs
21
22
23
24
25
26
7
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?