Robinson v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Filing
5
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/24/12 Recommending that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 4 be dismissed without leave to amend. The Clerk be directed to close this case. These Findings and Recommendations are referred to U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez. Objections to these F&R due within tourteen days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
DARTAN L. ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
11
12
No. CIV 11-2679 JAM EFB PS
vs.
14
THE COURT CLERKS, THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
SACRAMENTO,
15
Defendant.
13
16
17
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the
18
undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On October 21,
19
2011, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant
20
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, but dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend pursuant to 28
21
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Dckt. No. 3. The order noted that it was unclear from plaintiff’s complaint
22
precisely what he is alleging and/or what relief he is seeking from the court. Id. at 4. The order
23
then added that it appeared plaintiff was seeking to open a miscellaneous file in order to file
24
certain documents on the public record, and that absent an actual claim for relief, plaintiff is not
25
entitled to utilize the court as a record-keeping system. Id. The court then dismissed the
26
complaint because it did not allege any cognizable legal theory and did not allege any facts in
1
1
2
support of a cognizable legal theory. Id.
Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint against two unidentified court clerks.
3
Dckt. No. 4. Plaintiff alleges that the clerks violated his “personal, contractual and civil rights”
4
by refusing to file plaintiff’s “paperwork”1 under a miscellaneous case file. Id. at 2. Plaintiff
5
contends that the County of Sacramento recorded his documents, so he does not understand why
6
the federal court would not permit him to do so. Id. Plaintiff states that he “wanted to make
7
[his] documents public record so there wasn’t any confusion with law enforcement as to what
8
[his] status was pertaining to [his] nationality and contracts with the State of California.” Id.
9
Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the court clerks’ refusal to file his documents violated his rights,
10
as well as an injunction ordering the court clerks to allow plaintiff to file any documents under
11
this case number or miscellaneous file. Id. at 3.
12
As noted in the October 21, 2011 order, although pro se pleadings are liberally construed,
13
see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be
14
dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief
15
that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007)
16
(citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s
17
obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and
18
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual
19
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption
20
that all of the complaint’s allegations are true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate
21
based either on the lack of cognizable legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to
22
23
24
25
26
1
The documents attached to plaintiff’s amended complaint, which are presumably the
“paperwork” plaintiff sought to file, consist of an “Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of
Nationality of United States”; a “Statement of Understanding Concerning the Consequences and
Ramifications of Relinquishment or Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship”; a questionnaire
regarding “Information for Determining Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship”; and a “Trademark
Notice/Affidavit of Fact” regarding the “Estate of Dartan L. Robinson Holding Group LLC.”
Dckt. No. 4 at 5, 8, 12-15, 20-23.
2
1
support cognizable legal theories. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th
2
Cir. 1990).
3
In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations
4
of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740
5
(1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in
6
the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must
7
satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule
8
8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
9
pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the
10
grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007)
11
(citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).
12
Additionally, a federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only
13
those cases authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
14
Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 &
15
1332, confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question
16
jurisdiction requires that the complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2)
17
allege a “case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or
18
(3) be authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers
19
federal jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity
20
jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the
21
matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World
22
Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction
23
of the federal courts unless demonstrated otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of
24
subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys
25
Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996).
26
////
3
1
Here, plaintiff’s amended complaint is based on an alleged failure by two court clerks to
2
file certain documents from plaintiff in a miscellaneous case file. However, as previously noted
3
in the October 21, 2011 order, absent an actual claim for relief, plaintiff is not entitled to utilize
4
the court as a record-keeping system. Plaintiff does not allege that he purported to file a
5
complaint at the time he sought to file his paperwork; therefore, plaintiff did not seek to
6
commence a civil action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a
7
complaint with the court.”). Nor did plaintiff seek to commence an “ancillary or supplementary
8
proceeding,” or request that the court resolve any administrative matters through the judicial
9
system. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 101 (defining “Miscellaneous Case/Action” as “a number assigned to
10
an ancillary or supplementary proceeding not defined as a civil or criminal action”). Instead,
11
plaintiff merely wanted to utilize the court as a record-keeping system, which is not permissible.
12
Moreover, because the conduct by the court clerks that plaintiff alleges was improper was
13
“an integral part of the judicial process,” and they did not act in the clear absence of all
14
jurisdiction, they are entitled to immunity from plaintiff’s claims. Mullis v. United States Bankr.
15
Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding that court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial
16
immunity for filing decisions); Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1244 (9th Cir. 1996)
17
(according immunity to clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
18
California given nature of the responsibilities); Sharma v. Stevas, 790 F.2d 1486 (9th Cir. 1986)
19
(“The defendant Clerk of the United States Supreme Court has absolute quasi-judicial immunity
20
because his challenged activities were an integral part of the judicial process.”).
21
Because plaintiff’s complaint does not allege any cognizable legal theory, and it appears
22
amendment would be futile, the complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend. Noll v.
23
Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (While the court ordinarily would permit a pro se
24
plaintiff to amend, leave to amend should not be granted where it appears amendment would be
25
futile).
26
////
4
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
2
1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend; and
3
2. The Clerk be directed to close this case.
4
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
5
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
6
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
7
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
8
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
9
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.
10
Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
11
DATED: January 24, 2012.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
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?