Smith v. Davis ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CANDACE SMITH, Case No. 1:24-cv-00476-JLT-EPG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS ACTION 12 v. BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY 13 KATHY DAVIS, WITH COURT’S ORDERS 14 Defendant. (ECF No. 7) 15 AND 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE 17 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT- MATTER JURISDICTION 18 (ECF No. 8) 19 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 20 THIRTY DAYS 21 22 Plaintiff Candace Smith is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 23 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated below, the Court vacates its 24 previous findings and recommendations recommending that this case be dismissed for failure to 25 prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s orders. The Court further recommends that this 26 case be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 27 \\\ 28 1 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 2 As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may screen Plaintiff’s complaint 3 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have 4 been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 5 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 6 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 7 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 9 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 10 factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. 11 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting 12 this plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are 13 not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 14 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a plaintiff’s 15 legal conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 16 II. BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiff commenced this action on April 22, 2024. (ECF No. 1). The Court screened 18 Plaintiff’s complaint on June 27, 2024. (ECF No. 6). As stated in the Court’s screening order, 19 “[i]t is not clear what Plaintiff alleges and against whom,” but the complaint generally appears to 20 allege that Kathy Davis, a “DMV judge,” participated in organized crime, crime against 21 musicians, corruption under oath, sexual assault, property theft, and other torts. (Id. at 1, 3). 22 The Court’s screening order concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to comply with 23 Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that it failed to state any cognizable claims. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff was granted 30 days in which to file an amended complaint or to inform the 24 Court that she wished to stand on her original complaint. (Id. at 4). 25 After the deadline to respond to the Court’s screening order had passed and Plaintiff did 26 not file an amended complaint or notify the Court that she wished to stand on her original 27 complaint, the Court issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be 28 1 dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s orders. (ECF No. 7). 2 On September 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, dated July 30, 2024. 3 (ECF No. 8). On September 18, 2024, the Court was notified that the mailing of its findings and 4 recommendations to Plaintiff was returned as “undeliverable, unable to forward.” Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), Plaintiff’s notice of change of address is due by November 25, 2024.1 5 Plaintiff’s amended complaint contains the same address that the Court has on file, but the 6 Court has noted that Plaintiff’s original complaint lists two addresses. 7 In consideration of Plaintiff’s pro se status and the return of the Court’s findings and 8 recommendations in the mail, the Court will vacate its previous findings and recommendations 9 and screen Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Additionally, out of an abundance of caution, 10 the Court will have the Clerk of the Court send this order to both addresses Plaintiff has provided. 11 Going forward, however, the Clerk will only deliver court documents to Plaintiff’s 12 address on file, and the case is subject to dismissal if those documents cannot be delivered. 13 Plaintiff is warned that she must keep her address on file with the Court up to date. 14 III. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 15 Plaintiff’s FAC (ECF No. 8) alleges as follows: 16 Plaintiff alleges that her aunt, Kathy Davis, has been abusive to Plaintiff between 1989 17 and 2023. Plaintiff alleges that Davis has engaged in stalking and harassing Plaintiff; drugging 18 Plaintiff leading to “loss of memory and direction”; exposing Plaintiff to Herpes and HIV; “OD” 19 Plaintiff and sending men to “rape and drug” Plaintiff; stealing and robbing from Plaintiff; 20 “sack[ing]” Davis’s boyfriend to drug and kill Plaintiff as Plaintiff watched over her brother “that 21 is believed to be attacked by her mafia”; abusing Plaintiff when Plaintiff was a child and drugging 22 one of Plaintiff’s cousins to rape her as a child; “attempt[ing] to earn money from the Plaintiff 23 legacy”; “caurose a dangerous attack against [Plaintiff]”; poisoning and attempting to kill Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s unborn child; “committing felonies” against Plaintiff; drugging Plaintiff 24 and Plaintiff’s children and attempting to kill them by turning on the gas; and robbing Plaintiff of 25 26 1 Local Rule 183(b) provides, “A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the 27 Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may discuss the action 28 without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” 1 all of Plaintiff’s “things” at 719 N Fowler. 2 Plaintiff alleges several causes of action against Davis, including violations of numerous 3 penal code sections, including but not limited to rape, kidnapping, revenge porn, and making 4 criminal threats; a violation of business torts; a violation of California’s stalking laws; “[v]iolation of [i]dentity for purposely of gaining money from victim than security themselves 5 after beating up and robbing victim through armed robbery using police and law for stealing”; 6 “violation of domestic terrorism act”; “[v]iolation of sexual misconduct for government 7 employees and law/judges”; and “[s]tolen [l]ottery [t]icket.” Plaintiff states that she is “asking for 8 her liberty back and to render justice to the Plaintiff,” asserting that Davis “violated [Plaintiff’s] 9 right to liberty civil rights.” Plaintiff asks the Court to retrieve Plaintiff’s stolen items, “restoring 10 of reputational and the defendants revealing what they have earn on the part of myself and 11 paying. Monetary damages and punitive damages for the setups and torts for 32 years with 12 interest.” Plaintiff requests an undisclosed amount. 13 IV. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 A. Legal Standards for Federal Court Jurisdiction 15 A court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over a case “refers to a tribunal’s power to hear [the] 16 case, a matter that can never be forfeited or waived.” Union Pac. R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive 17 Engineers & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent. Region, 558 U.S. 67, 81 (2009) 18 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Moreover, courts . . . have an independent obligation to 19 determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any 20 party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 12(h)(3), “[i]f the [C]ourt determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the 22 [C]ourt must dismiss the action.” 23 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute . . . . It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited 24 jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting 25 jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citation 26 omitted). There are two main bases to establish subject-matter jurisdiction in a case. 27 First, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that “district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil 28 1 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Under the ‘“well- 2 pleaded complaint rule’ . . . federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented 3 on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 4 386, 392 (1987). Second, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 5 $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and involves “citizens of different States.” The 6 citizenship of an individual is “determined by her state of domicile, not her state of residence,” 7 with a domicile being the individual’s “permanent home, where she resides with the intention to 8 remain or to which she intends to return.” Kanter v. Warner-Lamber Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th 9 Cir. 2001). 10 B. Application to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 11 Applying these standards for Plaintiff’s amended complaint, the Court finds that it lacks 12 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. 13 As to jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, Plaintiff’s FAC fails to allege that 14 Defendant Kathy Davis is a citizen of a different state than Plaintiff, whose address is indicated as 15 Fresno, California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In fact, Plaintiff’s FAC indicates that Davis is not 16 diverse from Plaintiff because the FAC alleges that Davis’s conduct, including the theft of items 17 from Plaintiff’s home in California, has been ongoing for over 30 years. Additionally, Plaintiff’s 18 original complaint noted that Kathy Davis’s address was in Fresno, California. (ECF No. 1 at 2). 19 Plaintiff’s FAC also fails to state facts to support jurisdiction based on the presence of a 20 federal question. Plaintiff’s FAC exclusively lists violations of the California Penal Code, except 21 for one reference to a “[v]iolation of [d]omestic terrorism act.” (Id. at 5). Plaintiff states no facts 22 supporting such a violation. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (complaint that “tenders ‘naked 23 assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement’” are insufficient) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). Moreover, the remaining causes of action concern violations of the California 24 Penal Code.2 25 26 2 In many instances, Plaintiff expressly indicates that she is alleging violations of the California Penal Code. However, other sections of the complaint simply list “Penal Code” followed by a section citation. 27 See, e.g., ECF No. 8 at 4 (“Violation of committing child abuse and violating Penal Code Section 11165.7”). The Court assumes that Plaintiff’s reference to the “Penal Code” throughout her FAC is 28 intended to refer to the California Penal Code. See Cal. Penal Code § 11165.7 (defining “mandated —eee RII IO IIE OI EI IEE ED OE 1 Accordingly, the Court concludes that it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this 2 | action, and thus this action must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of 3 | Civil Procedure.? 4 | V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed for lack of 6 subject matter jurisdiction and without further leave to amend.* 7 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: g 1. This action be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 9 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge i assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 10 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 3 objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 4 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages, 5 including exhibits. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 16 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 7 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 13 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff at the 19 following addresses: P.O. Box 6085, Fresno, CA 93703, and 3269 Sample, Fresno, CA 93703. IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 51 | Dated: _ November 22, 2024 [Je heey □□ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 || reporter” within the meaning of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act). 3 Plaintiffs complaint would also be subject to dismissal on the basis that it again fails to comply with the 25 || pleading standards of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Igbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more 26 | than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation’) (citation omitted). Because the Court finds that it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this action, the Court will not address this 27 | issue. ‘ The Court notes that Plaintiff is well-acquainted with federal court rules and pleading requirements as 28 | she has filed at least 17 cases in the Eastern District of California this year.