Stanley E. Redick III v. Lowes Home Centers, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STANLEY E. REDICK, III., Case No. 1:21-cv-358-DAD-HBK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER 14 LOWES HOME CENTERS, LLC, JURISIDICTION AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED 15 Defendant. COMPLAINT, OR VOLUNTARILY DISMISS THE ACTION 16 TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Stanley E. Redick, III. initiated this action proceeding pro se by filing a 21 Complaint against Lowest Corporation and Lowest home Centers, LLC on March 8, 2021. (Doc. 22 No. 1). The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is 23 now proceeding on his First Amended Complaint1 against defendant Lowes Home Centers, LLC. 24 (Doc. No. 10). 25 In pertinent part, the Amended Complaint alleges Lowes Home Centers, LLC falsely 26 arrested and then maliciously prosecuted Plaintiff stemming from incidents that occurred at 27 28 1 Plaintiff sua sponte filed a First Amended Complaint to correct he name of defendant. 1 Lowes on November 3, 2018 and November 10, 2018. (See generally Doc. No. 10). Although 2 not entirely clear, it appears a Lowes employee accused Plaintiff of theft and the Sonora Police 3 Department reported to investigate the allegations. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff admits staying in jail for 3 4 to 5 days. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff blames Defendant accusing Lowes of making “false statements” 5 about him. (Id.) The Amended Complaint generally refers to the Fourth, Eighth, Seventh and 6 Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. (Id. at 4). The Amended Complaint 7 does not state what damages Plaintiff seeks from the alleged wrongdoing. 8 The Court is required to sua sponte inquire whether it has proper subject matter 9 jurisdiction of a case. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Home Depot U.S.A., 10 Inc. v. Jackson, ____ U.S. ____, 139 S.Ct. 1743, 1745 (2019) (citations omitted). Article II, § 2 11 of the Constitution delineates “the character of the controversies over which federal judicial 12 authority may extend.” Id. (citations omitted). “And lower federal-court jurisdiction ‘is further 13 limited to those subjects encompassed within a statutory grant of jurisdiction.’” Id. Here, it is 14 unclear whether this court has jurisdiction. 15 A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction of a case when it raises a federal question, 16 or when diversity jurisdiction exists. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); see also Home Depot USA 17 139 S.Ct. at 1745. Although Plaintiff cites various U.S. Constitutional Amendments in his 18 Amended Complaint, Defendant “Lowes Home Centers” is neither a state actor, nor a federal 19 actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of 20 Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), or the Federal Tort Claims Act. Absent federal question 21 jurisdiction, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the case. Further, to the extent Plaintiff 22 may have been prosecuted and convicted, Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) bars a claim 23 for monetary damages absent the conviction being reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated. 24 Absent federal question jurisdiction, plaintiffs may proceed in federal court if diversity 25 jurisdiction exists. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship among the 26 opposing parties and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interests and 27 costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Citizenship requires physical presence and the intent to remain. 28 Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989). Turning to the amount in 1 controversy, there are no facts alleging damages in excess of $75,000.00. Without diversity of 2 citizenship and amount in controversy in excess of $75,000, the Court lacks subject matter 3 jurisdiction. Here, Plaintiff does not allege a monetary amount for damages. 4 In fact, the Complaint is devoid of enough facts to set forth federal jurisdiction and to state 5 a sufficient claim. A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 6 the pleader is entitled to relief. . ..” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 7 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations omitted), and courts “are 9 not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 10 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are 11 accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 12 If the court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a 13 pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the action. 14 See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Lucas v. Department of 15 Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). A district court should not, however, advise the litigant 16 on how to cure the defects. Such advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial 17 decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 18 n.13. 19 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff must respond to this Order to Show Cause addressing the 20 jurisdictional issues or file a Second Amended Complaint correcting the pleading deficiencies set 21 forth above. If Plaintiff determines this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear his claim, he may 22 alternatively file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. 23 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 24 1. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date on this order, Plaintiff must file a 25 Response to this Order to Show Cause or file a Second Amended Complaint. 26 2. Alternatively, if plaintiff chooses to do so, he may file a Notice of Voluntary 27 Dismissal. 28 1 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this case without 2 || further notice. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: —_June 8, 2021 leo Th. foareA Zack 6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28