Washington v. Dillard ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PERRY KENJI WASHINGTON, Case No. 1:22-cv-01053-JLT-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. (Doc. 2) 14 CURTIS DILLARD and PERYNA ELIZABETH WASHINGTON DILLARD, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION Defendants. 16 (Doc. 1) 17 18 Plaintiff Perry Kenji Washington (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this action on 19 August 22, 2022. (Doc. 1.) 20 I. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 21 Concurrent with the complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis 22 without prepaying fees or costs pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code section 1915(a). 23 (Doc. 2.) Plaintiff has made the showing required by section 1915(a), and accordingly, the 24 request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 25 II. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Action 26 A. Screening Standard 27 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma 28 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 1 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 2 granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 4 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 5 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 6 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 7 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 8 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as 9 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 10 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 11 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 12 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 13 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 14 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully 15 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility 16 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 17 B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations 18 Plaintiff brings this action against his stepdad, Curtis Dillard, and his mother, Peryna 19 Elisabeth Washington Dillard, claiming denial of his pursuit of happiness. (Doc. 1, Compl. at pp. 20 2, 6.) Plaintiff alleges as follows: 21 My mom & dad stole my ID, email, address and fradulantly [sic] got 30K$ worth of property in my name and did not give me the money. They trashed their house 22 possessions for insurance money. Burned their hous[e] down then took all insurance money for me and spent it on drugs, alcohol, and hotels etc. 23 24 (Compl. at p. 5.) As relief, Plaintiff seeks an order to stay in a hotel or apartment with furniture 25 for two months paid by Defendants and for Defendants to pay $30,000 cash from home 26 insurance and sale of house. (Id. at. 6.) 27 C. Discussion 28 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may adjudicate only those cases 1 authorized by the Unites States Constitution and Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 2 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “Federal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary 3 appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) 4 (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 (1986)). Without 5 jurisdiction, the district court must dismiss the case. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. 6 California State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Generally, there are 7 two bases for subject matter jurisdiction: (1) diversity jurisdiction; and (2) federal question 8 jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. A review of the complaint reveals that it should be 9 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 10 1. Diversity Jurisdiction 11 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil 12 actions “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,” and where the 13 matter is between “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 14 Here, Plaintiff does not affirmatively invoke diversity of citizenship as a basis for this 15 Court’s jurisdiction. (See Compl. at p. 3.) Plaintiff does not allege that the parties’ citizenship is 16 completely diverse. The complaint indicates that Plaintiff and Defendants are all residents of 17 California. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also does not establish that the matter in controversy exceeds the 18 sum or value of $75,000. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks $30,000 in cash, among other forms of 19 relief. (Id. at 6.) Thus, Plaintiff's complaint does not establish diversity jurisdiction. 20 2. Federal Question Jurisdiction 21 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have jurisdiction over “all civil 22 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “A case ‘arises 23 under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the vindication 24 of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.’” Republican 25 Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. 26 v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)). The presence or absence of 27 federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” Caterpillar, Inc. 28 v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal 1 jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly 2 pleaded complaint.” Id. 3 Although Plaintiff invokes federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff does not allege any 4 violation arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. Indeed, Plaintiff 5 does not cite any particular federal statute or constitutional provision that would be applicable to 6 the allegations in his complaint. Thus, Plaintiff's complaint does not establish federal question 7 jurisdiction. 8 D. Conclusion and Recommendation 9 The Court has carefully considered whether Plaintiff, in light of his pro se status, should 10 be provided with an opportunity to amend his complaint. However, based on the nature of 11 Plaintiff’s allegations, which show that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court 12 concludes that granting further leave to amend would be futile. The deficiencies in the complaint 13 cannot be cured by further amendment. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 14 2000); Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of 16 subject mater jurisdiction without leave to amend. 17 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 18 Judge assigned to the case, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days 19 after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 20 with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 21 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff advised that the failure to file objections within the specified 22 time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on 23 appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 24 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: August 24, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28