Epperson v. Codification Order 497

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 7, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01355
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 CHRIS EPPERSON, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-1355 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 CODIFICATION ORDER 497, et al., ) THIS CASE ) 15 Defendants. ) (Doc. 11) ) 16 )

17 Chris Epperson seeks to proceed pro se in this civil rights action, asserting the court has federal 18 question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction over a claim for violation of the “Judiciary Order of 19 1758 obligated … public contract of the Tarrif (sic) Act of 1798.” (Doc. 1 at 3-5.) The magistrate 20 judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and found Plaintiff failed 21 comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or allege facts sufficient 22 to support a conclusion the Court has jurisdiction over the action. (Doc. 4 3-4.) The Court provided 23 the relevant pleading standards and granted Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. (See 24 id. at 2-5.) The Court also informed Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a 25 recommendation that the action be dismissed. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint.1 26 27 1 Although Plaintiff filed a single-page document on November 18, 2024, (Doc. 5), the magistrate judge 28 determined that it could not be construed as an amended complaint because it lacked “basic information, including the name of any defendant or any factual allegations.” (Doc. 6 at 2.) 1 The magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, reiterating the findings in the 2 || Screening Order that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 6 at 3-5.) The magistrate judg 3 || also found Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order. (/d. at 1-2, 6.) After considering the 4 || factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986), the 5 || magistrate judge determined terminating sanctions are appropriate. (/d. at 6.) Therefore, the 6 || magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action “based on Plaintiff's failure to obey the 7 || Court’s order and for lack of jurisdiction.” (Id. at 6-7.) 8 The Court served these Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him at that 9 || any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 6 at 7.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the □□□□□□□□ t 10 || file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the 11 || magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (/d., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 12 || (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so expired. 13 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 14 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the finding that the district court lacks 15 || jurisdiction over the claims is supported by the record and proper analysis. The Court also agrees tha 16 || Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order. Based upon the initial finding that the Court lacks 17 || jurisdiction, the Court finds dismissal without prejudice proper. See Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 18 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004) (“because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, th 19 || claims should have been dismissed without prejudice”). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 20 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 17, 2024 (Doc. 6) are 21 ADOPTED in full. 22 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 23 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: _ January 7, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wan 27 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28