Sharp et al v. The United States

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/9/2018 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP and DISMISSING 1 Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff is GRANTED 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint. (Fabillaran, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CALYSTA SHARP, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-491-TLN-EFB PS

v.

ORDER

THE UNITED STATES,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff Calysta Sharp seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

17
18

1915.1 Her declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF

19

No. 2. 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. As discussed

24

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

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

Under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

13

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

14

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor,

15

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy the pleading

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

As a threshold matter, plaintiff Calysta Sharp appears to bring this suit on her behalf and

7

on behalf of her two minor children. ECF No. 1 at 1; ECF No. 2 at 5. There is no indication from

8

the record that Ms. Sharp is an attorney. While Ms. Sharp may represent herself in this action,

9

she is not permitted to bring an action on behalf of the minor children without first retaining an

10

attorney. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (a non-lawyer

11

has no authority to appear as an attorney for another, and general power of attorney does not give

12

non-lawyer right to assert the personal constitutional claims of another).

13

More significantly, review of the complaint indicates that it must be dismissed for failure

14

to state a claim. The complaint identifies the Unites States as the sole defendant and alleges that

15

the federal jurisdiction is present pursuant to “USSCODE 896, et al.” The complaint also states

16

that this case concerns “Family/Community Reinstatement” and “Reinstatement [of] Parental

17

Rights.” Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff, however, left blank the sections of the form complaint reserved for

18

the statement of claim and relief sought. Consequently, the complaint does not contain any facts

19

supporting a cognizable claim.2

20

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair

21

notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev.

22

Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of

23

particularity overt acts which defendant engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id. As plaintiff

24

complaint is devoid of any factual allegations, it must be dismiss for failure to state a claim.

25

/////

26
27
28

2

Because plaintiff does not allege any facts nor identify any specific claim, she fails to
identify any reason why her action against the United States is not barred by sovereign immunity.
See Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160 (1981) (as a sovereign, the United States is immune
from suit except according to its consent to be sued).
3

1

Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff, however, is granted leave to file

2

an amended complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)

3

(district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in

4

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

5

shall clearly identify the claims asserted as to each defendant and set forth the factual allegations

6

against that defendant(s) which give rise to a cause. It shall specify a basis for this court’s subject

7

matter jurisdiction. Any amended complaint shall plead plaintiff’s claims in “numbered

8

paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances,” as required by

9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b), and shall be in double-spaced text on paper that bears line

10

numbers in the left margin, as required by Eastern District of California Local Rules 130(b) and

11

130(c). Any amended complaint shall also use clear headings to delineate each claim alleged and

12

against which defendant or defendants the claim is alleged, as required by Rule 10(b), and must

13

plead clear facts that support each claim under each header.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110.

25

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

26

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

27

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

28

/////
4

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

DATED: January 9, 2018.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5