Kumvachirapitag v. Gates et al

Filing 23

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on November 15, 2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Northern District of California United States District Court 12 13 SUKIT KUMVACHIRAPITAG, Plaintiff, 14 15 16 Case No.: 12-5075 JSC ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (Dkt. No. 21) v. BILL GATES, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action against numerous Defendants “for all frauds and 20 all the corruptions for past [sic] 14 fourteen [sic] years.”1 (Dkt. No. 21 at 16.) Plaintiff initially filed 21 this action on October 3, 2012 (Dkt. No. 1), and on October 10, 2012, filed an Amended Complaint 22 (Dkt. No. 5), which was dismissed without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 12.) On November 8, 2012, Plaintiff 23 filed a nearly identical Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (Dkt. No. 21.) Plaintiff brings similar 24 claims against many of the same defendants as those dismissed with prejudice on October 12, 2011 in 25 26 27 28 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge (Dkt. No. 6), and Defendants, not yet served in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are not parties to this case. See Third World Media, LLC v. Does 11568, 2011 WL 4344160 *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2011). 1 Case Nos. 11-4510 (JSW) (Dkt. No. 18) and 11-4405 (JSW) (Dkt. No. 15). Plaintiff’s SAC again fails 2 to state a claim and is DISMISSED with prejudice as outlined below. 3 DISCUSSION 4 The Court has an independent obligation to determine subject matter jurisdiction over an 5 action. United States v. Moreno-Morillo, 334 F.3d 819, 830 (9th Cir. 2003). The plaintiff has the 6 burden to establish that subject matter jurisdiction is proper. Tobar v. United States, 2008 WL 151549 7 *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2008) (citing Assoc. of Medical Colleges v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778- 8 779 (9th Cir. 2000)). The face of the complaint must state the grounds for federal subject matter 9 jurisdiction over an action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8(a); Kats v. Lucile Salter Packard Children's subject matter jurisdiction by making a federal claim or pleading diversity jurisdiction. See 28 USC 12 Northern District of California Hosp. at Stanford, 1995 WL 463668 *1 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 1995). Plaintiff can allege proper federal 11 United States District Court 10 §§ 1331, 1332. In addition to properly pleading subject matter jurisdiction, a complaint must state a 13 claim upon which legal relief may be granted. A complaint fails to state an actionable claim if a 14 plaintiff does not allege the “grounds” of his “entitlement to relief.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 15 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotation omitted). Essentially, a plaintiff must plead “factual content that 16 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 17 alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Venue must also be proper in the judicial 18 district in which a complaint is brought. See 28 U.S.C. §1391. 19 In its previous order dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court found that it could 20 not infer diversity jurisdiction or venue from the Amended Complaint as drafted, even under liberal 21 construction. (Dkt. No. 12 at 3.) Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff had failed to articulate an 22 amount in controversy, and even if Plaintiff did seek the many “septillions” of dollars listed in the 23 Amended Complaint as damages, he failed to link these claims to any loss he has suffered due to an 24 action by the Defendants. (Id.) Nor, the Court found, did the Amended Complaint articulate subject 25 matter jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question. (Id.) The Court found the Amended Complaint 26 indecipherable, lacking “any discernible facts that enable the Court to draw an inference that 27 misconduct has occurred, let alone that Defendants are individually or in aggregate responsible to 28 Plaintiff for that misconduct.” (Id. at 3-4.) The Court instructed Plaintiff that if he were to file another 2 1 amended complaint, “[it] must specifically state the theory under which Plaintiff maintains this Court 2 has subject matter jurisdiction and venue. Plaintiff must also cite specific misconduct by each named 3 Defendant linked to a cognizable legal theory. Failure to cure these pleading defects may result in 4 dismissal of this action with prejudice.” (Id. at 4.) 5 Because Plaintiff’s SAC fails to address the subject matter jurisdiction and venue issues raised 6 by the Court in its previous dismissal order, Plaintiff’s SAC must be dismissed. The SAC is a virtual 7 copy of Plaintiff’s previous complaint and provides no decipherable information or facts that could 8 support a finding of subject matter jurisdiction or proper venue. As with Plaintiff’s Amended 9 Complaint, the SAC also does not state a claim upon which relief may be based. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s SAC is devoid of any facts that allow the Court to draw an inference that 11 misconduct has occurred and that Defendants are somehow responsible for that conduct. CONCLUSION Northern District of California United States District Court 12 13 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. Leave to 14 amend may be denied “where the amendment would be futile.” Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 15 990 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd. v. Yujurio Nagata, 2012 WL 16 177557 *8 n.6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2012) (finding that further amendment can be denied as futile, 17 particularly when a plaintiff has already amended the complaint once). The Court concludes that 18 Plaintiff failed to cure the pleading defects in this action in his SAC and that any further amendment 19 would be futile. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 15, 2102 _________________________________ JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?