(PC) David E. Mackey v. Moore ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ERNESTO MACKEY, 1:21-cv-00607-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR CLERK TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT 13 vs. JUDGE TO THIS CASE 14 MOORE, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE 15 Defendants. BE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 16 JURISDICTION (ECF No. 9.) 17 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 18 FOURTEEN DAYS 19 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 David Ernesto Mackey (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 22 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 23 commencing this action on April 12, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) On April 15, 2021, the court issued an 24 order striking the Complaint for lack of Plaintiff’s signature, with leave to file a First Amended 25 Complaint bearing his signature. (ECF No. 5.) On April 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed the First 26 Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 7.) 27 On November 5, 2021, the court dismissed the First Amended Complaint for lack of 28 subject matter jurisdiction, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 8.) On November 17, 2021, Plaintiff 1 filed the Second Amended Complaint, which is now before the court for screening. (ECF No. 2 9.) 28 U.S.C 1915. 3 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 4 The in forma pauperis statute provides that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time 5 if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief 6 may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard 7 applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 8 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). A 9 complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 10 entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant 11 fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 12 534 U.S. at 512. Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 13 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft 14 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 15 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted 16 inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation 17 marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusion are 18 not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a 19 plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal 20 interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were 21 not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) 22 (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 23 Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 24 participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) 25 (emphasis added). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a 26 plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 27 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility 28 standard. Id. 1 III. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 2 Plaintiff is presently detained at Coalinga State Hospital in Coalinga, California, where 3 the events at issue in the Second Amended Complaint allegedly occurred. Plaintiff names as 4 defendants Kevin M. Moore (Accounting Officer), Gabrielle (Vocational Service Staff), Bruce 5 (Vocational Service Staff), Brandon Price (Executive Director), Department of Fiscal Services, 6 Department of State Hospitals, and Coalinga State Hospital (DSH-Coalinga) (collectively, 7 “Defendants”). 8 Plaintiff alleges that he was paid $725.00 but is still owed $57.00. Plaintiff states that in 9 February 2021, he filed a claim with the Department of State Hospitals-Coalinga for $782.00 10 wages, for time worked in January, February, and March 2020, and in March 2021 he was paid 11 $725.00, but he contends he is still owed $57.00.1 Defendants Gabrielle and Bruce are both 12 Vocational Services staff. Defendant Kevin M. Moore says there is no evidence to prove that 13 Plaintiff’s claim should not have been rejected. 14 Plaintiff requests as relief another $782.00, plus the $57.00 he is owed. 15 IV. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 16 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint lacks subject matter jurisdiction and should 17 be dismissed. 18 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are presumptively without 19 jurisdiction over civil actions. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 20 375, 377 (1994). The burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting 21 jurisdiction. See id. “[C]ourts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject 22 matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Ruhrgas AG 23 v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring 24 the court to dismiss the action if subject matter jurisdiction is lacking). 25 “Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction over two general types of cases: cases that 26 “aris[e] under” federal law, § 1331, and cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds 27 1 Plaintiff states that he submitted exhibits as evidence that he filed the claim in February 2021 28 and was paid $725.00 in March 2021. However, no exhibits were submitted with the Second Amended Complaint. 1 $75,000 and there is diversity of citizenship among the parties, § 1332(a). These jurisdictional 2 grants are known as “federal-question jurisdiction” and “diversity jurisdiction,” respectively. 3 Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019), reh’g denied, No. 17-1471, 4 2019 WL 3538074 (U.S. Aug. 5, 2019). Absence of subject matter jurisdiction requires a federal 5 court to dismiss a case. See Ruhrgas AG, 526 U.S. at 583 (recognizing that “Article III generally 6 requires a federal court to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before it 7 considers the merits of a case”). 8 A case “arises under” federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or 9 “where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of 10 federal law.” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) 11 (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)). 12 “[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded 13 complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 14 presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id. at 1089 (quoting Rivet 15 v. Regions Bank, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998)). 16 Here, Plaintiff alleges federal-question jurisdiction on the face of the complaint based on 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and he claims that his state and federal civil rights were violated. “[Section] 18 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a method for vindicating 19 federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (quoting 20 Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)); see also Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights 21 Org., 441 U.S. 600, 618 (1979); Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2012); 22 Crowley v. Nevada, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012); Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 23 1067 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint does not clearly invoke any federal 24 law or constitutional right and therefore does not present a federal question. Accordingly, the 25 Court finds that Plaintiff has failed adequately to allege Article III standing, and the Second 26 Amended Complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 27 /// 28 /// 1 V. CONCLUSION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2 For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Plaintiff’s Second Amended 3 Complaint lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must be dismissed. Under Rule 15(a) of the 4 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he court should freely give leave to amend when justice so 5 requires.” The Court previously granted Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint, and 6 the Second Amended Complaint represents Plaintiff’s second unsuccessful attempt to plead his 7 claims. The Court finds that the deficiencies outlined above are not capable of being cured by 8 amendment, and therefore further leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 9 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to randomly assign 11 a United States District Judge to this case; 12 and 13 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 14 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), this action be dismissed 15 with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 16 2. The Clerk be directed to close this case. 17 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 18 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 19 fourteen (14) days from the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff 20 may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 21 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 22 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 23 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: November 21, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28