Knowell-Jones v. Belini et al

Filing 22

ORDER Dismissing Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint and Action. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/10/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ORA KNOWELL-JONES,

9

Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
ACTION

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-14-1715 EMC

SILVIO R. BELINI, JR., et al.,

12

Defendants.
___________________________________/

13
14

Plaintiff Ora Knowell-Jones filed the instant action in this Court on April 14, 2014. Docket

15

No. 1. The Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but, pursuant to its

16

screening obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), dismissed the original complaint for failure to

17

state a claim but afforded Plaintiff leave to amend. Docket No. 12. The Court has since reviewed,

18

and dismissed, Plaintiff’s amended and second amended complaints. Plaintiff has now filed a third

19

amended complaint. However, as with Plaintiff’s previous complaints, the third amended complaint

20

fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s action will be

21

DISMISSED.

22

I.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

23

Plaintiff’s amended complaint asserted a claim against Defendant Marvin A. Remmich (a

24

broker for “Ram Properties”), Pat Prendiville (a “Certified Residential Specialist”), Citifinancial

25

Mortgage, and Silvio R. Belini Jr. for “Fraudulent Foreclosure.” Docket No. 13. The Court

26

dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter

27

jurisdiction.

28

1

Jurisdictionally, the Court found that Plaintiff’s amended complaint did not invoke federal

2

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because all parties were citizens of California, thus

3

destroying complete diversity. Docket No. 14, at 2; see also In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig.,

4

549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the

5

parties – each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.”). Further, the

6

Court noted that Plaintiff failed to allege any violation of federal statutory right and thus federal

7

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was lacking. Docket No. 14, at 2. As an alternative

8

holding, the Court found that the amended complaint failed to state a claim because the allegations

9

in the complaint were “mere conclusory statements unadorned by any factual support.” Specifically,
the Court was “unable to determine the role each Defendant played in the alleged scheme, how the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

alleged scheme was perpetrated, or when it occurred.” Docket No. 14, at 3-4.

12

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, liberally construed, appeared to assert claims under

13

the Truth in Lending Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and therefore addressed the Court’s

14

jurisdictional holding. Nonetheless, the Court dismissed the second amended complaint for failure

15

to state a claim because “Plaintiff’s corrected SAC consists entirely of legal conclusions or

16

conclusory statements – there are few, if any factual allegations.” Docket No. 18, at 3. The Court

17

described the pleading requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the requirement

18

that a complaint contain factual allegations as opposed to conclusory statements or conclusions of

19

law. Id. at 2-3. The Court then provided “Plaintiff one final chance to amend her complaint to

20

attempt to state a claim.” Id. at 3.

21

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint no longer asserts a Truth in Lending Act or Fair Debt

22

Collection Practices Act claim, but instead alleges fifteen state law causes of action against four

23

California defendants. Plaintiff generally alleges that the defendants engaged in a joint venture to

24

encumber Plaintiff’s property and then extract money from Plaintiff by threatening to seize her

25

property. Docket No. 21, at 7.

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

1
2

II.

DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a court must dismiss any case in which a litigant seeks leave

3

to proceed in forma pauperis if it determines that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may

4

be granted. Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

5

While not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff’s third amended complaint asserts fifteen

6

state causes of action. However, there is a single reference to defendants having violated Plaintiff’s

7

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Docket No. 21, at 14. The Court will liberally construe

8

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint as attempting to assert a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1986.

9

As a result, the Court finds that subject matter jurisdiction exists over this action under 28 U.S.C. §
1331. Ultimately, however, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Section

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

1986 “imposes liability on every person who knows of an impending violation of section 1985 but

12

neglects or refuses to prevent the violation.” Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d

13

621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, “[a] claim can be stated under section 1986 only if the

14

complaint contains a valid claim under [42 U.S.C. §] 1985.” Id. However, § 1985, and thus § 1986,

15

require a plaintiff to allege that some form of class-based animus (usually racial) motivated the

16

defendants’ actions. See Stonecipher v. Bray, 653 F.2d 398, 401 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Donahue

17

v. City of Boston, 304 F.3d 110, 122 (1st Cir. 2002). There are no allegations in the third amended

18

complaint that the defendants have engaged in some form of class-based discriminatory conduct.

19

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not stated a claim under either § 1985 or § 1986. See Stonecipher, 653

20

F.3d at 401 (affirming dismissal of § 1985 and § 1986 claim because “[n]owhere in his complaint

21

did Stonecipher allege that he was the victim of racial or other class-based invidiously

22

discriminatory action”).1

23
24

The Court has afforded Plaintiff three opportunities to amend her complaint. Each iteration
of Plaintiff’s complaint has raised different causes of action and each has failed to plead sufficient

25
1

26
27
28

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint contains references to the defendants having violated
her First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights. These amendments protect an individual’s rights
from government action and do not apply to actions against private individuals such as the
defendants in this action. See, e.g., United States v. Goldstein, 532 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1976)
(“[T]he Fourth Amendment is a constraint on government action rather than on the actions of private
individuals.”).

3

1

factual allegations to state a claim. Accordingly, the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. §

2

1986 claim will be without leave to amend. See Docket No. 18 (stating, in dismissing Plaintiff’s

3

second amended complaint, that the Court “will grant Plaintiff one final chance to amend her

4

complaint to attempt to state a claim”).

5

Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action all arise under California state law. Having found that

6

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the only federal cause of action asserted in the third

7

amended complaint,2 the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state

8

law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The dismissal is without prejudice to pursuit of these

9

claims in California state court.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is
instructed to enter judgment and close the file.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: September 10, 2014

17

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

For the reasons articulated by the Court in dismissing Plaintiff’s amended complaint, there
is no basis for diversity jurisdiction in this action as Plaintiff and all the defendants are alleged to be
citizens of California. See In re Digimarc Corp., 549 F.3d at 1234 (“Diversity jurisdiction requires
complete diversity between the parties – each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from
each plaintiff.”).

4