Smith v. Novoa ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CANDACE SMITH, Case No. 1:24-cv-00199-SKO 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE 11 v. A CLAIM AND LACK OF JURISDICTION 12 (Doc. 1) 13 DANNETTE NOVOA, 21-DAY DEADLINE 14 Defendant. Clerk to Assign District Judge 15 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 A. Background 19 On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff Candace Smith proceeding pro se, filed a civil action. (Doc. 20 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which she amended pursuant to 21 the Court’s order. (Docs. 1-4.) Following amendment of her application, Plaintiff was granted in 22 forma pauperis status on February 22, 2024. (Doc. 5.) 23 Plaintiff’s complaint is now before the Court for screening. The undersigned finds that 24 Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim or a basis for federal jurisdiction and will recommend 25 that this action be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend for failure to state a claim 26 upon which relief may be granted and lack of jurisdiction. 27 B. Screening Requirement and Standard 28 In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen 1 each case and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines the allegation of poverty is 2 untrue, or the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 3 or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 4 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that a complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be 5 granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. 6 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 7 The Court’s screening of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) is governed by the 8 following standards. A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim 9 for two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable 10 legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff 11 must allege a minimum factual and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant 12 fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g., Brazil 13 v. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 14 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 C. Summary of the Complaint 16 Plaintiff prepared her complaint using the general complaint form provided by this Court. 17 The complaint lists Dannette Novoa as the defendant. (Doc. 1 at 2.) In the section titled “Basis for 18 Jurisdiction,” neither “Federal question” nor “Diversity of citizenship” is selected. (Id. at 3.) 19 Plaintiff states that she and Defendant are citizens of California in the section titled “If the Basis for 20 Jurisdiction is Diversity of Citizenship.” (Id. at 4.) The “Amount in Controversy” is listed as “more 21 than 100,000 up.” (Id. at 5.) 22 The “Statement of Claim” section of the complaint reads: 23 Upon such Dannette Novoa is believe have intentional used her vehicle as a means for weapon causing a great car crash. Committing vehicular attempted man 24 slaughter under penal code 25 (Doc. 1 at 5.) As for the relief sought, Plaintiff writes, “punitive physical & car damages, other.” 26 (Id. at 6.) 27 The Civil Cover Sheet lists the nature of suit as “motor vehicle,” and the cause of action is 28 described as “motor vehicle accident under attempted vehicular manslaughter.” (Doc. 1-1.) 1 D. Pleading Requirements Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) 2 “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 3 exceptions.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002). A complaint must contain 4 “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. 5 P. 8(a)(2). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim 6 is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512 (internal quotation marks 7 and citation omitted). 8 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a 9 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 10 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff 11 must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its 12 face.’ “ Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Factual allegations are accepted 13 as true, but legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 14 The Court construes pleadings of pro se litigants liberally and affords them the benefit of 15 any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). However, “the 16 liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations,” not their legal theories. 17 Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). Furthermore, “a liberal interpretation of a civil 18 rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled,” Bruns 19 v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and 20 citation omitted), and courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal- 21 Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 22 The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient to state a cognizable 23 claim, and “facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability” fall short. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 24 at 678 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 A. Plaintiff Has Not Pled Any Cognizable Basis for Federal Court Jurisdiction 27 1. Legal Standard 28 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and their power to adjudicate is limited to 1 that granted by Congress. U.S. v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2000). Federal courts are 2 presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions, and the burden to establish the contrary rests 3 upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 4 Generally, there are two bases for subject matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction and 5 diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. 6 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction over 7 “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “A case 8 ‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the 9 vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.’” 10 Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Franchise 11 Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)). The presence or absence 12 of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” Caterpillar, Inc. 13 v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under this rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a 14 federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id. 15 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, district courts have diversity jurisdiction only over “all civil 16 actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest 17 and costs,” and the action is between: (1) “citizens of different States;” (2) “citizens of a State and 18 citizens or subjects of a foreign state;” (3) “citizens of different States and in which citizens or 19 subjects of a foreign state are additional parties;” and (4) “a foreign state . . . as plaintiff and citizens 20 of a State or of different States.” 21 This Court has an independent duty to consider its own subject-matter jurisdiction, whether 22 or not the issue is raised by the parties, (id.,) and must dismiss an action over which it lacks 23 jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505 F.2d 24 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974) (“It has long been held that a judge can dismiss sua sponte for lack of 25 jurisdiction.”). The burden is on the federal plaintiff to allege facts establishing that jurisdiction 26 exists to hear their claim(s). See Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996) (“A party 27 invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving the actual existence of subject 28 matter jurisdiction.”). 1 2 Plaintiff appears to assert a claim for “attempted vehicular manslaughter” under the “penal 3 code.” (Doc. 1 at 5; Doc. 1-1.) “[S]uch criminal claims may not be pursued in a civil lawsuit.” 4 Grimes v. A1-Auto Care, No. 21-cv-02093-LL-BLM, 2022 WL 959273, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 5 2022). See United States v. Duran, 41 F.3d 540, 544 (9th Cir. 1994) (“If the prosecutor has probable 6 cause to believe a defendant committed a crime, the decision of whether to prosecute and the charges 7 to be filed rests with the prosecutor.”). Plaintiff has not articulated any cognizable federal claim 8 over which this Court may assert federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To the extent 9 that Plaintiff intends to pursue a claim for bodily harm or property damage against Defendant arising 10 out of the alleged “car crash,” such a claim would be a state law claim sounding in tort, not a federal 11 claim. 12 The Court must determine whether there is complete diversity between the parties to invoke 13 jurisdiction to hear such a state law claim. Plaintiff alleges she and Defendant are citizens of 14 California. (Doc. 1 at 4.) Since Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of the same state, complete 15 diversity is lacking and Plaintiff cannot proceed in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. 16 Garcia-Cardenas v. Immigration Legal Servs., APC, No. 1:13-CV-01065-AWI, 2013 WL 4542223, 17 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2013) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806) (no plaintiff can 18 be a citizen of the same state as any of the defendants)). Because there is no subject matter 19 jurisdiction, this Court must recommend dismissal. 20 B. Leave to Amend Would Be Futile 21 When dismissing a complaint, the Ninth Circuit has stated that “leave to amend should be 22 granted unless the district court determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the 23 allegation of other facts.” Bly–Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal 24 quotation marks omitted); Chang v. Chen, 80 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir. 1996). If it is clear after 25 careful consideration that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without 26 leave to amend. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Hartmann 27 v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013); accord Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“Courts are not 28 required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”). 1 The complaint has not set forth any cognizable federal claim, and there is no diversity 2 jurisdiction over any state law claim due to a lack of complete diversity of citizenship. Because 3 Plaintiff has failed to plead facts invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, the complaint should be 4 dismissed without prejudice. Moreover, amendment would be futile because there is no set of facts 5 Plaintiff could allege in an amended complaint to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over her claim. 6 The undersigned recommends denying leave to amend because amendment would be futile. 7 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 8 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 9 without prejudice and without leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District 10 Judge to this action. 11 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 12 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B). Within twenty- 13 one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 14 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 15 Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 16 within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 17 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: February 28, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28