(PS) Schembri v. FBI Headquarters ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KIMBERLEY A. SCHEMBRI, Case No. 2:23-cv-00183-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 FBI HEADQUARTERS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a complaint that appears to assert claims against the Federal Bureau of 18 Investigation, the United States Marshals Service, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the United 19 States Department of Justice, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Her 20 complaint, however, fails to state a claim. I will give plaintiff a chance to amend her complaint 21 before recommending dismissal. I will also grant her application to proceed in forma pauperis, 22 ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 23 Screening and Pleading Requirements 24 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 26 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 27 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 28 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 1 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 2 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 3 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 4 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 5 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 6 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 7 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 8 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 9 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 10 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 11 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 12 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 13 Analysis 14 Plaintiff alleges that her husband is in Redding, California, and she is in Pueblo, Colorado. 15 She claims that she requested help from each defendant—the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service, DEA, 16 U.S. DOJ, and NASA—so that she might reunite her with her husband, but none have 17 responded.1 ECF No. 1 at 5. As compensation for defendants’ failure to respond, she seeks 18 damages ranging from $500,000 to $999 trillion and asks that the damages be paid in gift cards. 19 Id. at 6-9. 20 Plaintiff’s complaint does not identify any specific cause of action. I am unable, from her 21 conclusory allegations, to discern what claims she is attempting to assert. See Jones v. Cmty. 22 Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff must allege with at least some 23 degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.”). 24 I will allow plaintiff a chance to amend her complaint before recommending that this 25 action be dismissed. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 26 will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th 27 1 Plaintiff filed two letters with the court, which I reviewed. ECF Nos. 3 & 4. Plaintiff is 28 reminded that all necessary factual allegations must be contained in the complaint. 1 | Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face 2 | without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 3 | complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended 4 | complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each 5 | defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First 6 | Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an 7 | amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 8 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 10 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an 11 | amended complaint or advise the court she wishes to stand by her current complaint. If he selects 12 | the latter option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 13 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action. 14 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a new form complaint. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ( 1 Sy — Dated: _ May 22, 2023 Q——— 18 JEREMY D. PETERSON 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28