Iegorova v. Welness Recovery Center
Filing
3
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/7/2018 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; Plaintiff's 2 motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot; and the Clerk of Court be directed to close this case; IT IS ALSO ORDERED that all pleading, discovery, and motion practice in this action are STAYED pending resolution of the findings and recommendations; Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these F & R's.(Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LIUDMYLA IEGOROVA,
No. 2:18-cv-1556-JAM-KJN PS
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
ORDER AND
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WELLNESS RECOVERY CENTER,
Defendant.
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff Liudmyla Iegorova, proceeding without counsel, commenced this action and
requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.)
A federal court has an independent duty to assess whether federal subject matter
21
jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v.
22
Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had a duty
23
to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties
24
raised the issue or not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996).
25
The court must sua sponte dismiss the case if, at any time, it determines that it lacks subject
26
matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
27
“Under the substantiality doctrine, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when
28
the question presented is too insubstantial to consider.” Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d
1
1
1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-39 (1974)). “The claim
2
must be ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court or otherwise
3
completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the
4
District Court, whatever may be the ultimate resolution of the federal issues on the merits.’” Id.
5
(quoting Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974)); see also Apple v.
6
Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (“a district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a
7
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
8
Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated,
9
unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.”).
10
Plaintiff’s complaint is confusing and in part unintelligible, but appears to allege that a
11
medical clinic, the named defendant Wellness and Recovery Center, failed to respond to
12
plaintiff’s requests for an appointment and/or assistance with in-home support services. Plaintiff
13
also claims that the United States Government illegally evicted her from her HUD apartment,
14
stole evidence and private property from her apartment, and paid cash to third parties to harass
15
her and take illegal pictures of her at night. (See generally, ECF No. 1.)
16
The court finds plaintiff’s allegations in this case to be frivolous and insubstantial, and
17
thus recommends dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the substantiality
18
doctrine. Ordinarily, the court provides pro se plaintiffs with notice of pleading deficiencies and
19
an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal. However, in this case, the nature of plaintiff’s
20
allegations suggests that granting leave to amend would be futile. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins.
21
Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). Indeed, apart from this case, plaintiff has filed a slew of
22
largely frivolous cases in this district, naming defendants ranging from President Trump to
23
President Obama to Target Corporation to the Social Security Administration. See Iegorova v.
24
Trump, 2:18-cv-610-KJM-AC, ECF No. 3 n.1 (outlining plaintiff’s substantial litigation history
25
in this district).
26
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
27
1. The action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
28
2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court (ECF No. 2) be denied as
2
1
moot.
2
3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
3
In light of those recommendations, IT IS ALSO ORDERED that all pleading, discovery,
4
and motion practice in this action are STAYED pending resolution of the findings and
5
recommendations. With the exception of objections to the findings and recommendations, and
6
non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any motions
7
or filings until the findings and recommendations are resolved.
8
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
9
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)
10
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
11
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
12
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
13
shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the
14
objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
15
waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th
16
Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.
Dated: June 7, 2018
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?