Iegorova v. Chernyetsky

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 5/9/2018 DISMISSING 1 Complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Within 28 days from the date of this order, an amended complaint shall be filed 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." (Hunt, G)

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. 2:17-cv-2296 JAM DB PS

ORDER

SVETLANA CHERNYETSKY,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff, Liudmyla Iegorova, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred

18

to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending

19

before the court are plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

20

U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Therein, plaintiff complains about the scheduling of a

21

doctor’s appointment. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 2.)
The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma

22
23

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

24

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

25

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

26

I.

27
28

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

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western
2

1

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

2

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

3

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.

4
5
6

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

7

II.

8
9

Plaintiff’s Complaint
Here, plaintiff’s complaint fails to contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon

which the court’s jurisdiction depends or a short and plain statement of a claim showing that

10

plaintiff is entitled to relief. In this regard, plaintiff’s complaint consists entirely of vague and

11

conclusory allegations. For example, the complaint alleges that defendant, “Ms. Chernyetsky

12

during intake ignored evidence” that plaintiff “requested first available doctor appointment,” and

13

“refused to pay for job to provider” for plaintiff. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 2.) The complaint also

14

alleges that the defendant is the “[o]ldest member Russian conspiracy in USA government,” and

15

has committed “multiple crimes” against the plaintiff. (Id.) Defendant also, allegedly,

16

“demanded” plaintiff “vote for Hilary Clinton.” (Id. at 3.)

17

Plaintiff’s complaint, however, fails to identify a claim, fails to allege the elements of a

18

claim, and contains almost no factual allegations, such as when and where the events at issue

19

occurred. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a

20

complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and must allege facts that

21

state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v.

22

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “A pleading that offers ‘labels

23

and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.’ Nor

24

does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual

25

enhancements.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555,

26

557). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the

27

defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649.

28

////
3

1

Moreover, jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry that must precede the adjudication of any

2

case before the district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of

3

Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal courts are courts of limited

4

jurisdiction and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v.

5

Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37

6

(1992). “Federal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary appears

7

affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting

8

Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 (1986)).

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000).

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

a citizen of the United States, and (b) be domiciled in a state of the United States.” Lew v. Moss,
4

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Here, the complaint fails to allege why this court would have subject matter jurisdiction

5

over this action. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed.

6

III.

Leave to Amend

7

The undersigned has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend the complaint to

8

state a claim upon which relief can be granted and over which the court would have jurisdiction.

9

“Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.”

10

California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir.

11

1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293

12

(9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have

13

to allow futile amendments).

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

1988)).

22

Here, given the vague and conclusory nature of the complaint’s allegations, the

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. “While
5

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

which underlie plaintiff’s claims.

13

CONCLUSION

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

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

16

amend. 1

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

that this action be dismissed.

23

DATED: May 9, 2018

24

/s/ DEBORAH BARNES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28

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.
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