Branch v. State of California

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING 13 Amended Complaint filed by Clarence A. Branch. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on April 25, 2014. (jcslc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
CLARENCE A. BRANCH,

7

Case No. 14-cv-00297-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

10

Defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Re: Dkt. No. 13

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

I.

INTRODUCTION
On February 25, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Clarence Branch’s original complaint

14
15

with leave to amend within thirty days. See Dkt. No. 11. On March 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed an

16

Amended Complaint. See Dkt. No. 13 (―Am. Compl.‖). Having reviewed the Amended

17

Complaint, the Court finds that it contains the same deficiencies as the original complaint.

18

Specifically, subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. For the

19

reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice, and the

20

Clerk is directed to close the file.1

21

II.

REVIEW UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915
A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2)

22
23

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a

24

defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Additionally, a case must

25

be dismissed if a court determines ―at any time‖ that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.

26

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The Court has reviewed the Amended Complaint in this case, and it

27
1

28

Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).

1

finds that it suffers from the same flaws as the original complaint. The Court dismisses this case

2

with prejudice based on two independent grounds: (1) Plaintiff fails to properly allege federal

3

subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
A.

5

The Amended Complaint is captioned, ―Compel Suppression Amended Complaint.‖ See

6

Am. Compl. at 1. Plaintiff writes, ―I Pray, Request as amended. United States Attorny [sic], Los

7

Angeles, CA, District Attorny [sic], Los Angeles, CA.‖ Id. The next five pages consist of a list in

8

question and answer format that appears to reference a variety of topics, including a writ of habeas

9

corpus, unlawful detainer, consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), supplementary findings of the

10

Court of Appeals, expansion to a multidistrict panel, diversity of citizenship, federal jurisdiction,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

Amended Complaint

and standing orders. See id. at 2–6. Included in this list are references to appendices that Plaintiff

12

attaches to the Amended Complaint, which consist of previous filings in this action, excerpts from

13

what appear to be legal reference books, United States Public Law excerpts, state court records

14

from California and Texas, excerpts of the Civil Standing Orders of the undersigned and

15

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline S. Corley, and the ECF docket sheet in this action (―Appendices‖).

16

See id. at 7–23. The Amended Complaint does not contain a narrative of any events that occurred

17

involving Plaintiff, nor does it contain any other explanation of the claims that Plaintiff is trying to

18

bring.

19

B.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

20

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a case only if there is diversity or a

21

federal question. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Here, Plaintiff has failed to allege subject matter

22

jurisdiction based on either diversity or a federal question.

23

First, Plaintiff does not allege diversity of citizenship of the parties, nor does he allege an

24

amount in controversy of over $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff’s residency remains

25

unclear—his address on the cover page is listed as ―unkown [sic]‖—and so diversity of citizenship

26

is difficult to discern. See Am. Compl. at 1. Plaintiff appears to allege that there is diversity

27

because the case has been transferred to the Department of Justice. See id. at 4. To support this

28

assertion, he points to Appendix D, which appears to be a court record of some kind dated
2

1

December 16, 2011, noting: ―arrest disposition report sent via file transfer to Department of

2

Justice.‖ See id. at 18. However, it is not clear who authored the document, where the document is

3

from, or what it is about. Further, even if the Court were able to discern the nature of the

4

document, the Court fails to see how it would support a finding of diversity. Even assuming that

5

the parties are diverse, Plaintiff does not allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

6

He includes the number ―75,000‖ in his Amended Complaint, but to the extent that this is a

7

demand, it is not supported by any explanation of what the claim is for or who the claim is against.

8

See id. at 4. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to allege subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of

9

diversity.

10

Second, Plaintiff fails to properly allege a federal question because Plaintiff has failed to

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

identify any claims at all. Plaintiff appears to allege that there is federal question jurisdiction with

12

the notation, ―prima facie evidence and violation, habeas corpus jurisdiction.‖ See id. at 4. To

13

support this assertion, he points to Appendix E and E1, which appear to be excerpts of Public

14

Laws regarding forfeitures in the context of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and

15

Control Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. § 881(a), and provisions regarding writs of habeas corpus. See id.

16

at 19–20. However, Plaintiff does not explain how his situation applies to the laws that he cites.

17

To the extent that he may be seeking a writ of habeas corpus, this does not appear to be applicable

18

because Plaintiff does not appear to be in custody. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (writs of habeas corpus

19

may be extended to individuals in custody). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to allege subject

20

matter jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question.

21

C.

Failure to State a Claim

22

The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim upon

23

which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In determining whether Plaintiff fails to

24

state a claim, the Court assumes that all factual allegations in the Complaint are true. Parks Sch. of

25

Bus. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1990). However, ―the tenet that a court must

26

accept a complaint’s allegations as true is inapplicable to . . . mere conclusory statements.‖

27

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). The pertinent question is whether the factual

28

allegations, assumed to be true, ―state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.‖ Id. at 663
3

1

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Where the complaint has been

2

filed by a pro se plaintiff, as is the case here, courts must ―construe the pleadings liberally and []

3

afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.‖ Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)

4

(citation omitted).

5

Here, the Amended Complaint does not identify any claims at all. Construing the pleadings

6

liberally, it appears that Plaintiff is attempting to challenge his past arrests or citations. However,

7

he has not provided any explanation of the basis for his challenge. The legal citations that he

8

provides are not accompanied by any explanation of how they apply to his case, and the Court

9

cannot discern any claims from Plaintiff’s pleadings.

10

In general, ―[d]ismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear . . . that the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

complaint could not be saved by an amendment.‖ Petersen v. Boeing Co., 715 F.3d 276, 280 (9th

12

Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). However, ―[t]he district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is

13

particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.‖ Cafasso, United States

14

ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted)

15

(internal quotation marks omitted).

16

The Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to amend and instructed Plaintiff regarding

17

the deficiencies in his original Complaint. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not cure those

18

deficiencies. Nor has Plaintiff alleged any facts suggesting that the shortcomings can be cured by

19

further amendment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

20

The Clerk is instructed to close the file.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: April 25, 2014
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
4