(PS) Iegorova v. Intercom Security ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LIUDMYLA IEGOROVA, No. 2:19-cv-1355-MCE-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. 14 INTERCOM SECURITY 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Liudmyla Iegorova, proceeding without counsel, commenced this action and 18 requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) 19 A federal court has an independent duty to assess whether federal subject matter 20 jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. 21 Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had a duty 22 to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties 23 raised the issue or not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). 24 The court must sua sponte dismiss the case if, at any time, it determines that it lacks subject 25 matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 26 “Under the substantiality doctrine, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when 27 the question presented is too insubstantial to consider.” Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d 28 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-39 (1974)). “The claim 1 must be ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court or otherwise 2 completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the 3 District Court, whatever may be the ultimate resolution of the federal issues on the merits.’” Id. 4 (quoting Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974)); see also Apple v. 5 Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (“[A] district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss 6 a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules 7 of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, 8 unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.”). 9 Plaintiff’s complaint here alleges that in May 2016 an employee for defendant Intercom 10 Security fraudulently reported plaintiff, apparently while at a government building, which caused 11 the Sacramento Police to demand plaintiff to leave. (ECF No. 1.) According to plaintiff, these 12 acts amounted to corruption and fraud against plaintiff’s life and health and violated 18 U.S.C. § 13 241. (Id.) Additionally, the complaint alleges that documents were stolen from plaintiff in July 14 2015. (Id.) Plaintiff demands ninety nine trillion dollars in damages. (Id.) 15 As an initial matter, plaintiff, as a private citizen, has no standing to prosecute any alleged 16 crimes. Moreover, even if plaintiff’s claims could be construed as civil claims, the court finds 17 that plaintiff’s allegations are implausible, frivolous, devoid of merit, and unsubstantial. 18 Therefore, the court concludes that this action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter 19 jurisdiction pursuant to the substantiality doctrine. 20 Although the court, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable 21 case law, ordinarily liberally grants leave to amend, especially to pro se litigants, the nature of 22 plaintiff’s complaint here strongly suggests that granting leave to amend would be futile. See 23 Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). Moreover, the court notes that 24 plaintiff has already filed numerous frivolous actions in this district, including against former 25 President Obama, President Trump, Target Corporation, Chase Bank, the Intercontinental Hotel 26 Group, the Social Security Administration, the State Department, the Department of Housing and 27 Urban Development, and various apartment complexes. Such prior frivolous actions further 28 counsel against granting leave to amend. 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. The action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the 3 substantiality doctrine; and 4 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied as moot. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 7 | days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 8 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 9 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 10 || shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 11 | objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 12 || waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 13 | Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 | Dated: September 17, 2019 CA rd ht / (g—, Is CAROLYN K DELANEY 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28