Dean v. Lane

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/20/2017 ORDERING that the complaint filed September 26, 2017 (ECF No. 1 ) is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Within twenty-eight days from the date of this order, an amended complaint shall be fi led that cures the defects noted in this order and complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice; The amended complaint must bear the case number assigned to this action and must be titled "Amended Complaint"; Failure to comply with this order in a timely manner may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL DEAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-1988 KJM DB PS

v.

ORDER

DARLEEN LANE,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in

17
18

accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending before the court is

19

plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

20

(ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Therein, plaintiff complains of the destruction of property.
The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma

21
22

pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir.

23

2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons stated

24

below, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend.

25

I.

26

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the financial showing required by 28

27

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma

28

pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny
1

1

leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed

2

complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d

3

1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th

4

Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Department of Child Support Services, 584 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th

5

Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee’s request to proceed

6

IFP because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that McGee’s action is frivolous

7

or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the

8

District Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine

9

whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit,

10

the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”).

11

Moreover, the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of

12

poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to

13

state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

14

defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an

15

arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v.

16

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a

17

complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the

18

factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

19

To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to

20

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

21

570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as

22

true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most

23

favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v.

24

Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245

25

(9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by

26

lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true

27

conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western

28

Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).
2

1

The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:

2

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.

3
4
5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

6

II.

7

Plaintiff’s Complaint
Here, it appears from the complaint’s sparse allegations that this court lacks jurisdiction

8

over this matter. Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry that must precede the adjudication of any case

9

before the district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858

10

F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may

11

adjudicate only those cases authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511

12

U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37 (1992). “Federal courts are

13

presumed to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey

14

v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475

15

U.S. 534, 546 (1986)).

16

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time during the

17

proceedings. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir.

18

1996). A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] has

19

subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). It is the

20

obligation of the district court “to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.” Grupo Dataflux v.

21

Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004). Without jurisdiction, the district court

22

cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief. See Morongo, 858 F.2d at 1380.

23

The basic federal jurisdiction statutes are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, which confer

24

“federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal jurisdiction may also be

25

conferred by federal statutes regulating specific subject matter. “[T]he existence of federal

26

jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to

27

those claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d

28

1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000).
3

District courts have diversity jurisdiction only over “all civil actions where the matter in

1
2

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and the action

3

is between: “(1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a

4

foreign state; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are

5

additional parties; and (4) a foreign state . . . as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different

6

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “To demonstrate citizenship for diversity purposes a party must (a) be

7

a citizen of the United States, and (b) be domiciled in a state of the United States.” Lew v. Moss,

8

797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986). “Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between

9

the parties-each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” In re

10

Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litigation, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008).

11

Here, it does not appear that the court has diversity jurisdiction over this action, as the

12

complaint alleges that plaintiff and defendant are both California residents. Moreover, the

13

allegations of the complaint do not appear to implicate a federal question. In this regard, the

14

complaint alleges that the defendant locked plaintiff out of plaintiff’s business and destroyed

15

plaintiff’s art work. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 6.)

16

III.

17

Leave to Amend
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The undersigned

18

has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend the complaint to state a claim for relief

19

upon which the court would have subject matter jurisdiction. “Valid reasons for denying leave to

20

amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg.

21

Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Klamath-Lake

22

Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that

23

while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments).

24

However, when evaluating the failure to state a claim, the complaint of a pro se plaintiff

25

may be dismissed “only where ‘it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts

26

in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,

27

1228 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972); see also Weilburg v.

28

Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to
4

1

amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be

2

cured by amendment.”) (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir.

3

1988)).
Here, given the extremely vague and conclusory nature of the complaint’s allegations, the

4
5

undersigned cannot yet say that it appears beyond doubt that leave to amend would be futile.

6

Plaintiff’s complaint will therefore be dismissed, and plaintiff will be granted leave to file an

7

amended complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that if plaintiff elects to file an amended

8

complaint “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint

9

is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

10

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. “While

11

legal conclusions can provide the complaint’s framework, they must be supported by factual

12

allegations.” Id. at 679. Those facts must be sufficient to push the claims “across the line from

13

conceivable to plausible[.]” Id. at 680 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

14

Plaintiff is also reminded that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an

15

amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended complaint be complete

16

in itself without reference to prior pleadings. The amended complaint will supersede the original

17

complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, in an amended complaint,

18

just as if it were the initial complaint filed in the case, each defendant must be listed in the caption

19

and identified in the body of the complaint, and each claim and the involvement of each

20

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Any amended complaint which plaintiff may elect to file

21

must also include concise but complete factual allegations describing the conduct and events

22

which underlie plaintiff’s claims.

23

IV.

Conclusion

24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1. The complaint filed September 26, 2017 (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to

26
27
28

amend.1
1

Plaintiff need not file another application to proceed in forma pauperis at this time unless
plaintiff’s financial condition has improved since the last such application was submitted.
5

1

2. Within twenty-eight days from the date of this order, an amended complaint shall be

2

filed that cures the defects noted in this order and complies with the Federal Rules of Civil

3

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice.2 The amended complaint must bear the case number

4

assigned to this action and must be titled “Amended Complaint.”

5

3. Failure to comply with this order in a timely manner may result in a recommendation

6

that this action be dismissed.

7

Dated: October 20, 2017

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

DLB:6
DB/orders/orders.pro se/dean1988.dism.lta.ord

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action plaintiff may file a notice of
voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
6