Iegorova v. Lieninger

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/17/16 ORDERING that the 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED; Complaint is DISMISSED WITH 30 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LIUDMYLA IEGOROVA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:14-cv-3016-GEB-EFB PS

ORDER

CHARLES LIENINGER,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.1 Her

18

declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 2.

19

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

20

Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required

21

inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the

22

allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on

23

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27
28

1

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the
undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

1

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

2

520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it

3

fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.

4

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41

5

(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of

6

his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of

7

a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to

8

relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are

9

true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable

10

legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories.

11

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

12

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations

13

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976),

14

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the

15

plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy

16

the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2)

17

requires a complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

18

is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds

19

upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).

20

Additionally, a federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only

21

those cases authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,

22

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332,

23

confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction

24

requires that the complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a

25

“case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be

26

authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal

27

jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity

28

jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the
2

1

matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World

2

Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction

3

of the federal courts unless demonstrated otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of

4

subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys

5

Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996).

6

Plaintiff’s complaint consists almost entirely of incoherent rambling and is unintelligible.

7

See generally ECF No. 1. Plaintiff purports to allege claims against attorney Charles Lieninger,

8

but the precise basis for plaintiff’s claim(s) cannot be discerned from the complaint. Plaintiff

9

alleges that she became the victim of “open terror in Sacramento by members American cash

10

economy gang, by Supreme Court State of California and Judicial Branch Government USA

11

employee Attorney Lieninger.” Id. at 2 (emphasis omitted). She claims that defendant Lieninger

12

was “officially assigned attorney government USA to protect member Russian – American

13

conspiracy in Sacramento, child abuser terrorist Melnichuk Nelya.” She contends that defendant

14

harassed her and invented fraudulent statements that plaintiff had been “kidnapped by members

15

American cash economy gang . . . .” Id. at 3. She further alleges that defendant committed

16

perjury and fraud inside a court room to increase plaintiff’s stress, anxiety, “blood pressure and

17

level of sugar to most dangerous condition which could be fatal to [plaintiff].”

18

Given these allegations, the court is unable to determine whether it has subject matter

19

jurisdiction over plaintiff’s intended claim(s). She does not allege the citizenship of the parties,

20

nor is it clear how the allegations in the complaint give rise to a federal claim. Thus there is no

21

basis upon which either federal question or diversity jurisdiction can be established. Although the

22

complaint’s caption page does list a number of criminal statutes codified in Title 18 of the United

23

States Code, those criminal statutes do not give rise to civil liability. See Allen v. Gold Country

24

Cascino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) (no private right of action for violation of criminal

25

statutes). Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff’s claim(s) are premised on defendant’s alleged

26

violation of criminal statutes, such a claim(s) fails.

27
28

The caption page also indicates that this action is based upon “crime against constitution
USA,” possibly indicating plaintiff’s intention to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state
3

1

a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right

2

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged

3

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.

4

42, 48 (1988). The complaint fails to satisfy both elements. It does not allege that defendant

5

Lieninger is a state actor, nor does it specifically identify a constitutional provision that defendant

6

allegedly violated.

7

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed. However, plaintiff is granted leave

8

to file an amended complaint to afford her another opportunity to allege a basis for this court’s

9

jurisdiction, as well as a cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant and sufficient facts in

10

support of that cognizable legal theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000)

11

(en banc) (district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any

12

deficiency in their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the

13

amended complaint shall clearly set forth the allegations against defendant and shall specify a

14

basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Any amended complaint shall plead plaintiff’s

15

claims in “numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of

16

circumstances,” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b), and shall be in double-

17

spaced text on paper that bears line numbers in the left margin, as required by Eastern District of

18

California Local Rules 130(b) and 130(c). Any amended complaint shall also use clear headings

19

to delineate each claim alleged and against which defendant or defendants the claim is alleged, as

20

required by Rule 10(b), and must plead clear facts that support each claim under each header.

21

Additionally, plaintiff is cautioned that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to

22

make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be

23

complete in itself. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the

24

original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, once

25

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves any function in the case.

26

Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not

27

alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir.

28

1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. Ferdik v.
4

1

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to

2

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order

3

may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See Local Rule 110.

4

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

5

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

6

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as provided herein.

7

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended

8

complaint. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must

9

be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to timely file an amended complaint in accordance

10

with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed.

11

DATED: May 17, 2016.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5