(PS) Kaywood v. Kilgore ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KURT KAYWOOD, No. 2:24-cv-00931-DJC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DAVID KILGORE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. This matter was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed 19 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 21 I. SCREENING 22 A. Legal Standard 23 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In 26 screening a complaint the Court is guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Federal 27 Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules- 28 practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 1 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 2 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 3 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 4 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 5 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 7 the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 8 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 9 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 10 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 11 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 12 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 13 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 14 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 15 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 16 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 17 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 18 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 19 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 20 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 21 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or 22 unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 23 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice to state a 24 claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 25 662, 678 (2009). 26 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 27 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial 28 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 1 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro 2 se litigant should be given leave to amend the complaint, and some notice of the deficiencies, 3 unless it is clear the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 4 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 5 B. The Complaint 6 Plaintiff’s Complaint is 133-pages long and is a mishmash of various documents. ECF 7 No. 1. It is titled as a “notice of request for removal,” and the first six pages are largely blank. At 8 page seven, Plaintiff requests removal of a family court matter to the Northern District of 9 California. The Complaint is convoluted and contains frivolous assertions such as there have been 10 no courts or judges in America since 1789. ECF No. 1 at 20. Some of the documents submitted as 11 the Complaint pertain to child support. Plaintiff has also attached various state court documents 12 and receipts. 13 C. Analysis 14 The Complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of the basis for federal 15 jurisdiction, nor does it contain a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to 16 relief. There is no apparent basis for federal jurisdiction in the documents that Plaintiff submitted 17 as his Complaint. 18 The Complaint thus does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1)-(2) as it 19 does not contain a “short and plain” statement setting forth the grounds for federal jurisdiction, or 20 a short and plaint statement showing plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. The exact nature of what 21 happened to Plaintiff is unclear from the Complaint. Plaintiff names three Defendants on page 22 one, but is unclear what they allegedly did or what relief Plaintiff seeks. The court cannot tell 23 from examining the complaint what legal wrong was done to Plaintiff, by whom and when, or 24 how any alleged harm is connected to the relief Plaintiff seeks. 25 Accordingly, the complaint does not establish this court’s jurisdiction, does not comply 26 with Rule 8, and fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Rather than recommending 27 dismissal of the action, the undersigned will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the 28 //// 1 complaint to allege a proper basis for jurisdiction and facts supporting a cognizable cause of 2 action. 3 II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 4 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the Complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts 5 establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction. In addition, it must contain a short and plain 6 statement of Plaintiff’s claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially 7 numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each 8 paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the 9 complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where 10 possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their 11 complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 12 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 13 The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is 14 being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996) 15 (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 16 facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended complaint 17 must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ which Rule 18 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not require the court 19 and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for what.” Id. at 1179. 20 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s 21 amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 22 reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 23 complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline 24 Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint 25 supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & 26 Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 27 original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 28 alleged. 1 Plaintiff should bear in mind when amending the complaint that he must assert a basis for 2 federal jurisdiction. It appears that Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks to challenge a state court family 3 matter, perhaps an award of child support. If that is what Plaintiff asserts, then this court would 4 lack jurisdiction. Federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to review final state court 5 judgments. See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine 6 prevents “a party losing in state court … from seeking what in substance would be appellate 7 review of the state judgment in a United States district court.” Henrich v. Valley View Dev., 474 8 F.3d 609, 611 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Ignacio v. Judges of U.S. Court of Appeals, 453 F.3d 9 1160, 1165-66 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal “because the complaint is nothing more than 10 another attack on the California superior court’s determination in [the plaintiff’s] domestic 11 case.”). Family law and child support proceedings are traditional matters of state law for 12 determination in state court, and Plaintiff has not to this point alleged any basis for federal 13 jurisdiction. See Scharfenberger v. Jacques, 2020 WL 589421 (E.D. Cal. Fed. 6, 2020) (“The 14 court is without jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims under the ‘domestic relations’ exception to 15 federal jurisdiction because they concern child support payments, which are exclusively matters 16 of state law.”) (citing Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 702-04 (1992)). 17 Plaintiff should also consider whether he has pursued this action in the proper venue. 18 Plaintiff’s address is in Oakland, which is in the Northern District of California. There is at least 19 one statement in the documents submitted at ECF No. 1 that appears to show that Plaintiff wants 20 the case to be in the Northern District of California. ECF No. 1 at 7. The allegations of the 21 Complaint are too sparse to ascertain if venue is proper. Plaintiff should consult 28 U.S.C. § 22 1391 to ascertain the proper venue. 23 In conclusion, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 and fails to state a claim 24 upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has submitted a mishmash of documents that appear to 25 have something to do with child support proceedings in state court. It appears that federal subject 26 matter jurisdiction is lacking. However, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and the allegations 27 are unclear, the court will allow an opportunity to amend. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 28 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[a] district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to 1 | amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 2 || amendment.”). 3 Ill. CONCLUSION 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 6 2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint 7 that addresses the defects set forth above. The amended complaint must include a 8 sufficient jurisdictional statement and comply with Rule 8. If Plaintiff fails to timely 9 comply with this order, the undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed. 10 3. Alternatively, if Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action Plaintiff may file a notice 11 of voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil 12 Procedure. 13 SO ORDERED. 14 | DATED: September 15, 2024 is md 16 SEAN C. RIORDAN 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28