Williams v. Monument Security
Filing
3
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/09/12 RECOMMENDING that Plaintiff's 8/20/12 Application to proceed in forma pauperis 2 be denied. Plaintiff's 8/20/12 Complaint 1 be dismissed without leave to amend. And This Action be closed. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to these F&R are due within fourteen (14) 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
LEON WILLIAMS,
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
No. 2:12-cv-2164 KJM DAD PS
vs.
MONUMENT SECURITY,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendant.
15
/
16
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on August 20, 2012, by filing
17
a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. Nos.
18
1 & 2.) This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21)
19
and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
20
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C.
21
§ 1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis
22
status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny leave to
23
proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that
24
the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th
25
Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)). See
26
also Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District Court to
1
1
examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine whether the
2
proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is
3
bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). Moreover, the court must
4
dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of poverty is found to be untrue or
5
if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief
6
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. See 28 U.S.C. §
7
1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.
8
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28
9
(9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a complaint as frivolous where it is
10
based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly
11
baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
12
To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough
13
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
14
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court
15
accepts as true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light
16
most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg.
17
Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242,
18
1245 (9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by
19
lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as
20
true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western
21
Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).
22
The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:
23
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.
24
25
26
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
2
1
Here, plaintiff’s complaint is deficient in two respects. First, it does not contain a
2
short and plain statement of the grounds upon which this court’s jurisdiction depends.
3
Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry that must precede the adjudication of any case before the
4
district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d
5
1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may adjudicate
6
only those cases authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375,
7
377 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37 (1992).1 “Federal courts are presumed
8
to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis,
9
4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S.
10
534, 546 (1986)).
11
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time during
12
the proceedings. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th
13
Cir. 1996). A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it]
14
has subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). It
15
is the obligation of the district court “to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.” Grupo Dataflux
16
v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004). Without jurisdiction, the district court
17
cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief. See Morongo, 858 F.2d at 1380.
18
The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon plaintiff as the party asserting
19
jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; see also Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 543 (1974)
20
(acknowledging that a claim may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if it is “so insubstantial,
21
implausible, . . . or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy
22
within the jurisdiction of the District Court”); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946)
23
(recognizing that a claim is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction where it is “wholly
24
25
26
1
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; see also Ankenbrandt v.
Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 697-99 (1992).
3
1
insubstantial and frivolous” and so patently without merit as to justify dismissal for lack of
2
jurisdiction ); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that even
3
“[a] paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer federal subject matter
4
jurisdiction . . . and may be dismissed sua sponte before service of process.”).
5
The basic federal jurisdiction statutes are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, which
6
confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal jurisdiction may also
7
be conferred by federal statutes regulating specific subject matter. District courts have “original
8
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
9
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “Most federal-question jurisdiction cases are those in which federal
10
law creates a cause of action. A case may also arise under federal law where ‘it appears that
11
some substantial, disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of one of the well-
12
pleaded state claims.’” Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Franchise
13
Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983)). The
14
“well-pleaded complaint rule” provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal
15
question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. California v.
16
United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000).
17
“‘Arising under’ federal jurisdiction only arises . . . when the federal law does
18
more than just shape a court’s interpretation of state law; the federal law must be at issue.” Int’l
19
Union of Operating Eng’rs v. County of Plumas, 559 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere
20
presence of a federal issue does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction, and
21
passing references to federal statutes do not create a substantial federal question. Lippitt v.
22
Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc., 340 F.3d 1033, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2003); Rains v. Criterion
23
Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 344 (9th Cir. 1996). “When a claim can be supported by alternative and
24
independent theories – one of which is a state law theory and one of which is a federal law theory
25
– federal question jurisdiction does not attach because federal law is not a necessary element of
26
the claim.” Rains, 80 F.3d at 346. See also Lippitt, 340 F.3d at 1043. Here, plaintiff’s
4
1
complaint does not contain any statement of the grounds upon which this court’s jurisdiction
2
depends. Rather, as explained further below, plaintiff’s complaint merely sets forth allegations
3
of alleged wrong doing against him by a private security guard.
4
Second, plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of his
5
claim showing that he is entitled to relief. In his complaint plaintiff alleges as follows. On June
6
23, 2012, plaintiff had an argument with a security guard employed by defendant at a motel
7
plaintiff was visiting. (Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at 1.) After exchanging shouts and foul language,
8
the security guard threatened to report to the police that plaintiff had attempted to kidnap a girl.
9
(Id.) After plaintiff left the scene of the argument he received a phone call from a friend who
10
was staying at the motel stating that the security guard was claiming plaintiff had attempted to
11
kidnap the friend’s sister. (Id.) In his complaint plaintiff alleges in conclusory fashion that
12
defendant’s “slander” violated “federal and constitutional laws.” (Id. at 1-2.)
13
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a
14
complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and must allege facts that
15
state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v.
16
Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “A pleading that offers ‘labels
17
and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.’ Nor
18
does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual
19
enhancements.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
20
555, 557). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the
21
defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649.
22
Moreover, a litigant who complains of a violation of a constitutional right does
23
not have a cause of action directly under the United States Constitution. Livadas v. Bradshaw,
24
512 U.S. 107, 132 (1994) (affirming that it is 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that provides a federal cause of
25
action for the deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution); Chapman v.
26
Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 617 (1979) (explaining that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was
5
1
enacted to create a private cause of action for violations of the United States Constitution); Azul-
2
Pacifico, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 973 F.2d 704, 705 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Plaintiff has no cause
3
of action directly under the United States Constitution.”).
4
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that,
5
[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
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
6
7
8
The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the
9
defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Dep’t of
10
Soc. Servs. City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A
11
person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of §
12
1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform
13
an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.”
14
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
15
Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their
16
employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a
17
supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must
18
be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v.
19
Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the
20
involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board
21
of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
22
In order to state a cognizable claim under § 1983 the plaintiff must allege facts
23
demonstrating that he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
24
States and that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West
25
v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). It is the plaintiff’s burden in bringing a claim under § 1983 to
26
allege, and ultimately establish, that the named defendants were acting under color of state law
6
1
when they deprived him of a federal right. Lee v. Katz, 276 F.3d 550, 553-54 (9th Cir. 2002).
2
Here, the complaint specifically alleges that defendant Monument Security “isn’t
3
a government entity.” (Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at 1.) Thus, the allegations of the complaint fail to
4
demonstrate that plaintiff was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
5
United States and that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.
6
7
Accordingly, for all of 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
pleading 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 of the complaint filed by plaintiff in this action as noted
15
above, the court finds that it would be futile to grant plaintiff leave to amend in this instance.
16
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
17
1. Plaintiff’s August 20, 2012 application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No.
18
2) be denied;
19
20
2. Plaintiff’s August 20, 2012 complaint (Doc. No. 1) be dismissed without leave
to amend; and
21
3. This action be closed.
22
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States
23
District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
24
fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file
25
written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections
26
to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
7
1
objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal
2
the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
DATED: November 9, 2012.
4
5
6
7
8
DDAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\williams2164.ifpden.f&rs.wpd
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
8
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?