Swami v. District Attorney
Filing
14
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/06/16 RECOMMENDING the 13 Amended Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and that the Clerk be directed to close the case. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Jackson, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SARAN SWAMI,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:14-cv-844-TLN-EFB PS
Plaintiff,
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
Defendant.
16
17
The court previously granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to
18
28 U.S.C. § 1915, but dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
19
§ 1915(e)(2). ECF No. 12. The order noted, among other things, that although plaintiff purported
20
to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it appeared that the only named defendant is immune
21
from suit. Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed. However, plaintiff was granted leave
22
to file an amended compliant if he could allege cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant
23
and sufficient facts in support of that cognizable legal theory.
24
As noted in the court’s prior order, although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see
25
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be
26
dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief
27
that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007)
28
(citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s
1
1
obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and
2
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual
3
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption
4
that all of the complaint’s allegations are true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate
5
based either on the lack of cognizable legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to
6
support cognizable legal theories. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
7
1990).
8
In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations
9
of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976),
10
construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the
11
plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy
12
the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2)
13
“requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
14
is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds
15
upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing
16
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).
17
Additionally, a federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only
18
those cases authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
19
511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332,
20
confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction
21
requires that the complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a
22
“case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be
23
authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal
24
jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity
25
jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the
26
matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World
27
Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction
28
of the federal courts unless demonstrated otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of
2
1
subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys
2
Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996).
3
As was the case with plaintiff’s original complaint, his first amended complaint is
4
unintelligible and the basis for his claim cannot be deciphered. He alleges that for decades he has
5
predicted and observed the public killing and prosecution of victims by the County of
6
Sacramento, that the county took control of a house he owned by suing him in state court, that
7
this somehow led to the county causing “the killings of the occupants [of the house] by a fire,”
8
and that defendant now wants to prosecute him. ECF No. 13 (emphasis omitted).
9
Plaintiff further claims that Officer Joyce Thorgrimson from the Sacramento District
10
Attorney’s Office obtained a search warrant by making false statements. Id. The only allegedly
11
false statement identified in the complaint is that “attorney Oliver does not represent plaintiffs
12
and all documents from plaintiffs should be seized.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that he is represented by
13
attorney Keith Oliver and that “Plaintiffs were [sic] running the office of attorney Keith Oliver
14
from [his] home.” Id. Plaintiff claims that on April 1, 2014, defendant allegedly came to
15
plaintiff’s house and took his computer and legal documents. Plaintiff contends this act was a
16
violation of the attorney-client privilege, litigation privilege, private attorney general privilege
17
and his right to privacy. Id. at 2. He also states that the state court ultimately found no
18
wrongdoing on his part and that therefore all seized properties should be returned immediately.
19
Id. The complaint purports to assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 for violation of
20
plaintiff’s right to be “free from unlawful search and seizure and to be free from unwarranted
21
governmental interference.” Id. at 3.
22
Plaintiff’s complaint specifically states that the “Defendant [in this action] is [the] District
23
Attorney of Sacramento.” Id. at 2. However, the complaint contains insufficient factual
24
allegations to state a section 1983 claim against this defendant. As was previously explained to
25
plaintiff, “[p]rosecutors are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for their conduct
26
insofar as it is ‘intimately associated’ with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Betello v.
27
Gammick, 413 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff once again fails to allege any facts
28
demonstrating that defendant’s conduct was not intimately associated with the judicial phase of
3
1
the criminal process. Instead, he alleges little more than his property was seized pursuant to a
2
warrant that he believes was invalid. Moreover, he does not provide any facts indicating how the
3
defendant was involved in the alleged unlawful seizure of his property. Accordingly, plaintiff’s
4
complaint fails to state a claim.
5
Despite notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend, plaintiff
6
remains unable to state a proper claim for relief. Therefore, this action should be dismissed,
7
without further leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
8
1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are only required to grant
9
leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to
10
amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”); see also Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th
11
Cir. 1995) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the
12
pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not be cured by the allegation of
13
other facts.”).
14
Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the amended complaint (ECF No. 13) be
15
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and that the Clerk be
16
directed to close the case.
17
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
18
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
19
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
20
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
21
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
22
objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
23
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
24
appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez
25
v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
26
DATED: April 6, 2016.
27
28
4
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?