1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL EDWARD OHM, JR., Case No. 2:25-cv-02611-TLN-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 14 CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCE DISMISS (ECF NO. 7) AGENCY, ET AL., 15 Defendant. 16
17 18 Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants California 19 Department of Conservation, Clayton Haas, Sharon Paul Paul, Sujit Smile, State of 20 California Natural Resource Agency, and Wendy Weaver, which is fully briefed. (ECF 21 No. 7). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se.1 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court submits 22 the motion upon the record and briefs on file and vacated the December 2, 2025, 23 hearing. For the reasons that follow, this Court recommends GRANTING Defendants’ 24 motion to dismiss without leave to amend. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. Civ. 28 P. 272, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. Factual Allegations2 3 Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants Department of Conservation, 4 Clayton Haas, Sharon Paul Paul, Sujit Smile, State of California Natural Resource 5 Agency, and Wendy Weaver. (ECF No. 1.) It appears that Plaintiff is seeking relief based 6 on claims of “biological warfare,” “chemical warfare,” “mental abuse,” “[a] hate crime,” 7 “prostitution,” “child pornography,” “harassment,” and “sexual harassment.” Id. at 4. 8 Under Plaintiff’s “Statement of a Claim” section, he makes reference to an “involuntary 9 hospitalization,” and “forced medication administration,” and alludes to several medical 10 records. Id. at 5. Plaintiff claims the basis for federal court jurisdiction under both federal 11 question and diversity of citizenship. Id. at 3. For relief, Plaintiff appears to reference 12 costs relating to “pain and suffering,” “hospitalization therapy,” and “permanent mental 13 disability costs.” Id. at 5. 14 B. Procedural Posture 15 Plaintiff initiated this action on September 11, 2025. (ECF No. 1). On October 14, 16 2025, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss with a hearing date set for December 2, 17 2025. (ECF No. 7.) Because Plaintiff did not file an opposition or a statement of non- 18 opposition in accordance with Local Rule 230(c), this Court vacated the December 2 19 motion hearing on November 10, 2025, provided Plaintiff with another opportunity to 20 respond, and ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition no 21 later than November 24, 2025. (ECF No. 11.) On November 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed an 22 opposition to the motion to dismiss accompanied by a civil cover sheet, which appears to 23 be an attempt to amend the original complaint. (ECF No. 12.) On November 25, 2025, all 24 Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. (ECF No. 15.)
25 2 These facts primarily derive from the complaint (ECF No. 1), which are construed in the 26 light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party. Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs., 706 F.3d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir. 2013). However, the Court does not assume the truth of 27 any conclusory factual allegations or legal conclusions. Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). 28 1 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 2 A. Pro Se Pleadings, Construction and Amendment 3 Pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed and afforded the benefit of any 4 doubt. Chambers v. Herrera, 78 F.4th 1100, 1104 (9th Cir. 2023). Upon dismissal of any 5 claims, the court must tell a pro se plaintiff of a pleading’s deficiencies and provide an 6 opportunity to cure such defects. Garity v. APWU Nat'l Lab. Org., 828 F.3d 848, 854 (9th 7 Cir. 2016). However, if amendment would be futile, leave to amend does not need to be 8 provided. Lathus v. City of Huntington Beach, 56 F.4th 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2023). 9 To determine the propriety of a dismissal motion, the court may not consider facts 10 raised outside the complaint (such as in an opposition brief), but it may consider such 11 facts when deciding whether to grant leave to amend. Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 12 1026 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) 14 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may hear only those cases 15 authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 16 Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry, and “[f]ederal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, 17 ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 18 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 19 (1986)); see Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 20 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Without jurisdiction, the district court cannot decide the 21 merits of a case or order any relief and must dismiss the case. See Morongo, 858 F.2d 22 at 1380. A federal court’s jurisdiction may be established in one of two ways: actions 23 arising under federal law or those between citizens of different states in which the 24 alleged damages exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. “Subject-matter jurisdiction 25 can never be waived or forfeited,” and “courts are obligated to consider sua sponte” 26 subject matter jurisdiction even when not raised by the parties. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 27 U.S. 134, 141 (2012). 28 A party may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1 under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(1). Fed. Civ. R. 12(b)(1). “A Rule 12(b)(1) 2 jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 3 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). During a facial attack, “the challenger 4 asserts that the allegations contained in the complaint are insufficient on their face to 5 invoke federal jurisdiction.” Id. 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of 8 subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that there is no cognizable federal claim as 9 well as a lack of diversity among the parties. (ECF No. 7-1). Defendants also move to 10 dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which 11 relief to be granted. Id. at 1. Because this Court finds jurisdiction lacking, its analysis is 12 focused on the Rule 12(b)(1) motion. 13 A. Federal Question Jurisdiction 14 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable federal 15 claim. (ECF No. 7-1). The Court agrees. Upon review, Section A of Plaintiff’s complaint 16 fails to identify a single federal statute, treaty, or provision of the United States 17 Constitution in its basis for federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL EDWARD OHM, JR., Case No. 2:25-cv-02611-TLN-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 14 CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCE DISMISS (ECF NO. 7) AGENCY, ET AL., 15 Defendant. 16
17 18 Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants California 19 Department of Conservation, Clayton Haas, Sharon Paul Paul, Sujit Smile, State of 20 California Natural Resource Agency, and Wendy Weaver, which is fully briefed. (ECF 21 No. 7). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se.1 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court submits 22 the motion upon the record and briefs on file and vacated the December 2, 2025, 23 hearing. For the reasons that follow, this Court recommends GRANTING Defendants’ 24 motion to dismiss without leave to amend. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. Civ. 28 P. 272, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. Factual Allegations2 3 Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants Department of Conservation, 4 Clayton Haas, Sharon Paul Paul, Sujit Smile, State of California Natural Resource 5 Agency, and Wendy Weaver. (ECF No. 1.) It appears that Plaintiff is seeking relief based 6 on claims of “biological warfare,” “chemical warfare,” “mental abuse,” “[a] hate crime,” 7 “prostitution,” “child pornography,” “harassment,” and “sexual harassment.” Id. at 4. 8 Under Plaintiff’s “Statement of a Claim” section, he makes reference to an “involuntary 9 hospitalization,” and “forced medication administration,” and alludes to several medical 10 records. Id. at 5. Plaintiff claims the basis for federal court jurisdiction under both federal 11 question and diversity of citizenship. Id. at 3. For relief, Plaintiff appears to reference 12 costs relating to “pain and suffering,” “hospitalization therapy,” and “permanent mental 13 disability costs.” Id. at 5. 14 B. Procedural Posture 15 Plaintiff initiated this action on September 11, 2025. (ECF No. 1). On October 14, 16 2025, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss with a hearing date set for December 2, 17 2025. (ECF No. 7.) Because Plaintiff did not file an opposition or a statement of non- 18 opposition in accordance with Local Rule 230(c), this Court vacated the December 2 19 motion hearing on November 10, 2025, provided Plaintiff with another opportunity to 20 respond, and ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition no 21 later than November 24, 2025. (ECF No. 11.) On November 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed an 22 opposition to the motion to dismiss accompanied by a civil cover sheet, which appears to 23 be an attempt to amend the original complaint. (ECF No. 12.) On November 25, 2025, all 24 Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. (ECF No. 15.)
25 2 These facts primarily derive from the complaint (ECF No. 1), which are construed in the 26 light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party. Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs., 706 F.3d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir. 2013). However, the Court does not assume the truth of 27 any conclusory factual allegations or legal conclusions. Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). 28 1 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 2 A. Pro Se Pleadings, Construction and Amendment 3 Pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed and afforded the benefit of any 4 doubt. Chambers v. Herrera, 78 F.4th 1100, 1104 (9th Cir. 2023). Upon dismissal of any 5 claims, the court must tell a pro se plaintiff of a pleading’s deficiencies and provide an 6 opportunity to cure such defects. Garity v. APWU Nat'l Lab. Org., 828 F.3d 848, 854 (9th 7 Cir. 2016). However, if amendment would be futile, leave to amend does not need to be 8 provided. Lathus v. City of Huntington Beach, 56 F.4th 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2023). 9 To determine the propriety of a dismissal motion, the court may not consider facts 10 raised outside the complaint (such as in an opposition brief), but it may consider such 11 facts when deciding whether to grant leave to amend. Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 12 1026 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) 14 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may hear only those cases 15 authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 16 Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry, and “[f]ederal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, 17 ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 18 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 19 (1986)); see Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 20 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Without jurisdiction, the district court cannot decide the 21 merits of a case or order any relief and must dismiss the case. See Morongo, 858 F.2d 22 at 1380. A federal court’s jurisdiction may be established in one of two ways: actions 23 arising under federal law or those between citizens of different states in which the 24 alleged damages exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. “Subject-matter jurisdiction 25 can never be waived or forfeited,” and “courts are obligated to consider sua sponte” 26 subject matter jurisdiction even when not raised by the parties. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 27 U.S. 134, 141 (2012). 28 A party may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1 under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(1). Fed. Civ. R. 12(b)(1). “A Rule 12(b)(1) 2 jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 3 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). During a facial attack, “the challenger 4 asserts that the allegations contained in the complaint are insufficient on their face to 5 invoke federal jurisdiction.” Id. 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of 8 subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that there is no cognizable federal claim as 9 well as a lack of diversity among the parties. (ECF No. 7-1). Defendants also move to 10 dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which 11 relief to be granted. Id. at 1. Because this Court finds jurisdiction lacking, its analysis is 12 focused on the Rule 12(b)(1) motion. 13 A. Federal Question Jurisdiction 14 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable federal 15 claim. (ECF No. 7-1). The Court agrees. Upon review, Section A of Plaintiff’s complaint 16 fails to identify a single federal statute, treaty, or provision of the United States 17 Constitution in its basis for federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s remaining 18 pleadings under the section titled “Statement of a Claim” likewise fail to reference a claim 19 relating to a federal statute, treaty, or provision of the United States Constitution. Id. at 5. 20 To the extent Plaintiff’s claims are discernible, they do not arise under federal law. 21 Therefore, federal question jurisdiction is not established. 22 B. Diversity Jurisdiction 23 Defendants also correctly argue that there is a lack of diversity among the parties 24 to establish diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff, a citizen of California, is suing the California 25 Department of Conservation along with individual defendants. Id. at 2, 5. Because this 26 agency is a citizen of California (which Plaintiff acknowledges in his complaint), there is 27 no diversity of citizenship among the parties, which is sufficient to grant Defendants’ 28 Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 1 C. Leave to Amend 2 For the foregoing reasons, providing Plaintiff leave to amend would be futile 3 || because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. While Plaintiff has attached a 4 || separate document to his opposition in an attempt to amend the complaint, amendment 5 || as of right is not available where it was filed more than 21 days after service of the 6 | defendants’ motion to dismiss.* See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). In addition, Plaintiff has 7 || not obtained the opposing parties’ consent or leave of the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 || 15(a)(2). 9 | IV. CONCLUSION 10 In conclusion, based upon the findings above, it is RECOMMENDED: 11 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) be GRANTED without leave to 12 amend; and 13 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 15 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 16 | 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 17 | written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should 18 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 19 | reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14 20 | days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time 21 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 22 || 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 || Dated: January 13, 2026 CO i S \U 24 CHI S00 KIM 25 | 7 onm2e11.16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 | ° Plaintiffs attachment appears to raise new claims that are unrelated to the allegations in the original complaint. (ECF No. 12-1). If Plaintiff wishes to raise these claims, he 28 | must file them in a new action.