Lorretz et al v. Comey et al

Filing 30

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/17/2017 RECOMMENDING that Plaintiff's first amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend; All other pending motions be denied as moot and that the Clerk be directed to close this case. Referred to District Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DIANNA LEE WALLACH LORRETZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-90-TLN-EFB PS

v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

JAMES COMEY, Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

below, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim and must be dismissed.

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, must 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

A.

7

As a threshold matter, plaintiff Diana Lee Wallach Lorretz is the sole signatory to the

Plaintiff May Not Initiate an Action on Behalf of Others

8

complaint. But she purports to bring this action on behalf of herself and Turuche Lorretz and Joel

9

Dennis Wallach. There is no indication from the record that Diana Lorretz is an attorney. Unless

10

she is an attorney she may not represent Turuche Lorretz and Joel Dennis Wallach, and may not

11

sign pleadings on their behalf. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that

12

“[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper . . . be signed by at least one attorney of record

13

in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

14

11(a). In addition, Local Rule 183(a) requires that any individual who is representing herself

15

without an attorney must appear personally or by courtesy appearance by an attorney and may not

16

delegate that duty to any other individual. E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a). Accordingly, Ms. Lorretz may

17

not bring claims on behalf of Turuche Lorretz and Joel Dennis Wallach. See Johns v. County of

18

San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876-877 (9th Cir. 1997) (a non-lawyer has no authority to appear as an

19

attorney for another, and general power of attorney does not give non-lawyer right to assert the

20

personal constitutional claims of another).

21

B.

22

More significantly, review of the first amended complaint reveals that it must be

Plaintiff’s Complaint Fails to Allege a Cognizable Claim

23

dismissed for failure to state a claim. See ECF No. 14.2 The amended complaint, which purports

24

to allege claims against more than 25 defendants, consists largely of unintelligible and conclusory

25

allegations that fail to suggest, much less support, a cognizable legal claim. Plaintiff claims that

26
27
28

2

Prior to screening of her original complaint, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (permitting a amendment once as a matter of course within 21
days after the filing of a responsive pleading). Therefore, the court screens the first amended
complaint.
3

1

she is a “beekeeper rancher housewife,” and that defendants have prevented her from finding

2

Turuche Lorretz and Joel Wallach, who appear to be plaintiff’s relatives. ECF No. 14 at 6. She

3

claims that the FBI and the Attorney General “covered up the not forgivable defendant anti-U.S.

4

constitution activity [for] a long time, therefore some of we [sic] thirty one plaintiff have been

5

assassinated instead of protected and rescued.” Id. She further alleges that the defendants must

6

be decapitated “to make sure they are dead.” Id. at 7. Lastly, she claims defendants depleted

7

funds from a direct express card and have not replaced the funds even though defendants could do

8

so “in less than one hour. Therefore plaintiff could not escape from Sacramento crime scene.”

9

Id.

10

The amended complaint does not, however, identify any specific causes of action. Nor

11

does it include any coherent factual allegations which could plausibly support a cognizable claim

12

for relief. Accordingly, the amended complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim

13

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). Further, it is clear that another amendment cannot cure the

14

deficiencies.3 Therefore, it is recommended that the dismissal be without further leave to amend.

15

See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (While the court ordinarily would

16

permit a pro se plaintiff to amend, leave to amend should not be granted where it appears

17

amendment would be futile).4

18

/////

19

/////

20
3

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s original complaint was plagued with similar incoherent allegations. For
example, plaintiff alleged that her time and money have been stolen by federal police officers,
and that strangers are engaging in a conspiracy to commit elder abuse, bank robbery, wire fraud.
ECF No. 1 at 5. She also claimed that James Comey, the director of the FBI, covered up for “FBI
Agents who became bank robbers” and told lies about plaintiff. Id. at 6. She also alleged that her
wallet was stolen 4 years ago, but that the State of California has refused to replace her driver’s
license. Id. She further claimed that a decision from a federal court issued in May 2015 shows
that the Surgeon General of the United States “is breaking the law even today,” and that the
police arranged to have “Royal Prince Harold of England to Breathe on [plaintiff].” Id.
4

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a status hearing and motion to transfer the case to a
different district, which both contain similar unintelligible allegations. ECF Nos. 20, 23. In light
of the recommendation that this action be dismissed without leave to amend, those motions are
moot.
4

1
2

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

3

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that:

4

1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend;

5

2. All other pending motions be denied as moot; and

6

3. The Clerk be directed to close the case.

7

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

8

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

9

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

10

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

11

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

12

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

13

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

14

DATED: April 17, 2017.

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