Epperson v. United States ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS JONATHAN EPPERSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-00495-JLT-BAM 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL 13 v. (Doc. 5) 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Chris Jonathan Epperson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 18 initiated this civil action against the United States of America on April 3, 2023. (Doc. 1.) On 19 April 6, 2023, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and granted him leave to amend within 20 thirty (30) days. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is currently before the Court for 21 screening. (Doc. 5.) 22 I. Screening Requirement and Standard 23 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma 24 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 25 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 26 granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 28 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 1 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 2 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 3 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 4 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as 5 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 6 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 7 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 8 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 9 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 10 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully 11 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility 12 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 13 II. Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations 14 Plaintiff resides in Sylmar, California, located in Los Angeles County. As with his 15 original complaint, Plaintiff drafted his amended complaint using the form provided by this 16 Court. The caption of the complaint names the “American Foreign Affairs refugee Convention 17 House of Assembly” as defendant. (Doc. 5.) However, the complaint form lists the following 18 defendants: (1) Federalist No. 10; (2) James Madison; (3) Geoffrey S. Binney; (4) Richard 19 Nixon; and (4) Sen. Al Gore. (Id. at pp. 2-3.) 20 Plaintiff identifies the basis for jurisdiction as both federal question and diversity of 21 citizenship. In the second that asks which of his federal constitutional or federal statutory rights 22 have been violated, he lists the following: “Article III Constitution,” “Executive Order 10958,” 23 “Original, No. 10.” In the section in which he is asked to indicate the basis for diversity 24 jurisdiction, Plaintiff states that James Madison, an individual and a corporation, is the plaintiff 25 and that David Orsby is the defendant. (Id. at p. 4.) Plaintiff specifies that the amount in 26 controversy is as follows: “I can have this case before jury less than year. Rule 41(b) 27 500,000,000 Fiscal year. Zillion hr. Rule 41, too many bugs in the system.” (Id. at 5.) 28 /// 1 The statement of claim section states, “You cant see her from here. A Fossil can last up to 2 two Hundred yrs. Fragile bullets easily to detect to the street. A string of serial killers. It was the 3 Misreport Avery George Abraham Lincoln Thurdgood Marshall Orthopedic Chemistry.” (Id.) 4 (unedited text). The requested relief section states, “They dont even like you messing with their 5 powers. Federal dont cross state. My subcauntious tells me you think that your going In order to 6 move on to calculus you must take pre-cal somewhere.” (Id. at p. 6.) 7 In the attachment to the amended complaint, Plaintiff lists the following: 8 Chemical Weapons ban-missle nuclear 9 Atomic Act Evident Tampeeron discreet U.S. government seals U.S. Supreme Court 10 United States Bank 497 Sec. 102(a) Each state Anylands. 11 Under Interogation Safety Cell A.B.C.D. 12 Abbreviate vs A.D.B.C_ever since. Any More Attribbuttes. 13 They dont even like you messing with their powers. 14 Federal dont cross state. 15 The clerk would have a truck load of paperwork 16 Fugitive Slave Act. 17 entrapment 18 Infridgement 19 Objection imposition of sanctions 20 cross-examination 21 motion to prohibit 22 23 (Id.) 24 III. Discussion 25 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 26 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and 27 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 28 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause 1 of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 2 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 3 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 4 at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are 5 not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557. 6 Plaintiff’s complaint is not a plain statement of his claims. While short, Plaintiff’s 7 complaint does not include any factual allegations. It is disjointed, confusing, insubstantial, and 8 incomprehensible as written. At the most basic level, Plaintiff does not state what happened, 9 when it happened, or who was involved. He also does not clearly identify his claims, causes of 10 action, the parties, or the relief that he is seeking. Without any factual allegations, the Court 11 cannot determine what Plaintiff is alleging or how defendants are alleged to be responsible. 12 Absent clear, intelligible allegations, the amended complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for 13 relief. Despite being provided with the relevant pleading standard, Plaintiff has been unable to 14 cure this deficiency. 15 B. Jurisdiction 16 Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to establish this Court’s jurisdiction. Federal courts 17 are courts of limited jurisdiction and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by the United 18 States Constitution and Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 19 “Federal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from 20 the record.’ ” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport 21 Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 (1986)). Without jurisdiction, the district court must dismiss 22 the case. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 23 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Generally, there are two bases for subject matter jurisdiction: (1) 24 diversity jurisdiction; and (2) federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. A review of 25 the amended complaint reveals that it should be dismissed because it lacks any basis for subject 26 matter jurisdiction. 27 Diversity of Citizenship 28 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil 1 actions “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,” and where the 2 matter is between “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Here, Plaintiff does not 3 adequately allege that the parties’ citizenship is completely diverse. Indeed, Plaintiff identifies 4 James Madison as the plaintiff and he names multiple defendants, some of whom are deceased. 5 Plaintiff also does not establish that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 6 $75,000. Thus, Plaintiff's amended complaint does not establish diversity jurisdiction. 7 Federal Question 8 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have jurisdiction over “all civil 9 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “A case ‘arises 10 under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the vindication 11 of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.’ ” Republican 12 Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. 13 v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)). The presence or absence of 14 federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” Caterpillar, Inc. 15 v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal 16 jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly 17 pleaded complaint.” Id. 18 Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not include factual allegations sufficient to state a 19 claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Indeed, Plaintiff does 20 clearly state what happened nor does he cite any particular federal statute or constitutional 21 provision that would be applicable to the disjointed phrases and sentences. Simply citing a 22 federal statute or a provision of the Constitution is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction in the 23 absence of a well-pleaded complaint. Thus, Plaintiff's complaint does not establish federal 24 question jurisdiction. 25 IV. Conclusion and Order 26 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, fails to state 27 a cognizable claim for relief, and fails to establish this Court’s jurisdiction. Despite being 28 provided with the relevant pleading and legal standards, Plaintiff has been unable to cure the 1 deficiencies in his complaint. Further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 2 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 3 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this 4 action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 5 failure state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted, and failure to establish this 6 Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 7 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District 8 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 9 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may 10 file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 11 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 12 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 13 magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 14 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: April 17, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28