1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DUCHUN LAFRE GOODWIN, Case No. 1:23-cv-00260-ADA-HBK 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS ACTION1 13 v.
14 ROYAL PROPERTIES, VICTORIA FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD BRAMBLE and ANGELA HILL, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, Duchun Lafre Goodwin (“Plaintiff” or “Goodwin”), is proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil action. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends 19 that the district court dismiss this action and close this case. 20 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 21 Because Plaintiff is proceeding in form pauperis, the Court may dismiss a case “at any 22 time” if a court determines, inter alia, the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state claim on 23 which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 24 such relief. 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) -(iii); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F. 3d 1122, 1129 25 (9th Cir. 2000) (section 1915(e) applies to all litigants proceeding in forma pauperis). A 26 complaint, however, should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 28 (E.D. Cal. 2022). 1 prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim that would entitle him to relief. Johnson v. 2 Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 996 (1997). A complaint 3 must include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 4 relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Dismissal for failure to state a claim in this context is governed by 5 the same standard as dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Barren v. 6 Harrington, 152 F. 3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). As such, a complaint must contain sufficient 7 factual matter to state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 8 662, 678 (2009). “A complaint is plausible on its face when it contains sufficient facts to support 9 a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. At this stage, 10 the court accepts the facts stated in the complaint as true. Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Tr., 425 11 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). A court does not accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, 12 unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 13 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). Nor are legal conclusions considered facts. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 14 Due to a plaintiff’s pro se status, a court must liberally construe the operative complaint in 15 the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969); 16 Bernhardt v. L.A. County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). If a pleading could be cured by the 17 allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before 18 dismissal of the action. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127-29; Lucas v. Department of Corr., 66 F.3d 19 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). However, it is not the role of a court to advise a litigant on how to cure 20 the defects. Such advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” 21 Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13. 22 BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF OPERATIVE PLEADING 23 On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a form “Complaint for a 24 Civil Case.” (Doc. No. 1, “Complaint”). On April 25, 2023, the Court screened Plaintiff’s 25 Complaint and found that it failed to state a cognizable federal claim or otherwise plead this 26 Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. (Id. at 3-4). While the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction was 27 unclear from the face of the Complaint, the Court liberally construed the Complaint and inferred 28 Plaintiff was predicating the action on diversity jurisdiction against Defendants as well as federal 1 question. (Id. at 3-5). However, even after liberally construing the Complaint as alleging a 2 federal claim by making a passing reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1991,2 the Complaint did 3 not identify a specific federal question upon which the Complaint was based nor did the 4 Complaint provide any factual allegations in support of any claim. (Id. at 4). Further, because 5 the Complaint asserted that both he and certain Defendants were citizens of California and the 6 amount in controversary was well below the $75,000.00 threshold, the Complaint facially failed 7 to allege diversity jurisdiction. (Id.). Plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to file an amended 8 complaint on or before May 26, 2023. (Id. at 5, ¶1). 9 On May 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a purported “Amended Complaint for a Civil Case.” 10 (Doc. No. 5). Plaintiff placed the above case number on the amended complaint and checked the 11 box requesting a jury trial, but the pleading otherwise contains no other pages. The cover sheet 12 identifies no parties in the caption and contains additional pages setting forth any factual 13 allegations or identifying any claims are included. (Id.). The cover sheet is unsigned and 14 undated. (Id.). 15 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 16 As an initial matter, the purported amended complaint, in addition to being wholly 17 deficient, is unsigned. As more fully set forth herein, the Court finds it would be futile to strike 18 the unsigned, undated amended complaint and provide Plaintiff with another opportunity to refile 19 it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). 20 Lack of Federal Jurisdiction 21 “Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction 22 exists, even when no party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010). A 23 federal court is presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction, and a plaintiff bears the burden of 24 establishing that subject matter jurisdiction is proper. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 25 2 “The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (the ‘1991 Act’) was enacted to restore civil rights limited by then-recent 26 Supreme Court decisions and to ‘strengthen existing protections and remedies available under federal civil rights laws to provide more effective deterrence and adequate compensation for victims of 27 discrimination.’” E.E.O.C. v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, 345 F.3d 742, 747 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). 28 1 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A federal court is obligated to inquire into whether it has subject 2 matter jurisdiction and required to dismiss the action if jurisdiction is lacking. Valdez v. Allstate 3 Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Further, 28 U.S.C.
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 DUCHUN LAFRE GOODWIN, Case No. 1:23-cv-00260-ADA-HBK 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS ACTION1 13 v.
14 ROYAL PROPERTIES, VICTORIA FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD BRAMBLE and ANGELA HILL, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, Duchun Lafre Goodwin (“Plaintiff” or “Goodwin”), is proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil action. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends 19 that the district court dismiss this action and close this case. 20 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 21 Because Plaintiff is proceeding in form pauperis, the Court may dismiss a case “at any 22 time” if a court determines, inter alia, the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state claim on 23 which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 24 such relief. 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) -(iii); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F. 3d 1122, 1129 25 (9th Cir. 2000) (section 1915(e) applies to all litigants proceeding in forma pauperis). A 26 complaint, however, should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 28 (E.D. Cal. 2022). 1 prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim that would entitle him to relief. Johnson v. 2 Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 996 (1997). A complaint 3 must include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 4 relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Dismissal for failure to state a claim in this context is governed by 5 the same standard as dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Barren v. 6 Harrington, 152 F. 3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). As such, a complaint must contain sufficient 7 factual matter to state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 8 662, 678 (2009). “A complaint is plausible on its face when it contains sufficient facts to support 9 a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. At this stage, 10 the court accepts the facts stated in the complaint as true. Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Tr., 425 11 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). A court does not accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, 12 unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 13 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). Nor are legal conclusions considered facts. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 14 Due to a plaintiff’s pro se status, a court must liberally construe the operative complaint in 15 the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969); 16 Bernhardt v. L.A. County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). If a pleading could be cured by the 17 allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before 18 dismissal of the action. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127-29; Lucas v. Department of Corr., 66 F.3d 19 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). However, it is not the role of a court to advise a litigant on how to cure 20 the defects. Such advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” 21 Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13. 22 BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF OPERATIVE PLEADING 23 On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a form “Complaint for a 24 Civil Case.” (Doc. No. 1, “Complaint”). On April 25, 2023, the Court screened Plaintiff’s 25 Complaint and found that it failed to state a cognizable federal claim or otherwise plead this 26 Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. (Id. at 3-4). While the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction was 27 unclear from the face of the Complaint, the Court liberally construed the Complaint and inferred 28 Plaintiff was predicating the action on diversity jurisdiction against Defendants as well as federal 1 question. (Id. at 3-5). However, even after liberally construing the Complaint as alleging a 2 federal claim by making a passing reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1991,2 the Complaint did 3 not identify a specific federal question upon which the Complaint was based nor did the 4 Complaint provide any factual allegations in support of any claim. (Id. at 4). Further, because 5 the Complaint asserted that both he and certain Defendants were citizens of California and the 6 amount in controversary was well below the $75,000.00 threshold, the Complaint facially failed 7 to allege diversity jurisdiction. (Id.). Plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to file an amended 8 complaint on or before May 26, 2023. (Id. at 5, ¶1). 9 On May 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a purported “Amended Complaint for a Civil Case.” 10 (Doc. No. 5). Plaintiff placed the above case number on the amended complaint and checked the 11 box requesting a jury trial, but the pleading otherwise contains no other pages. The cover sheet 12 identifies no parties in the caption and contains additional pages setting forth any factual 13 allegations or identifying any claims are included. (Id.). The cover sheet is unsigned and 14 undated. (Id.). 15 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 16 As an initial matter, the purported amended complaint, in addition to being wholly 17 deficient, is unsigned. As more fully set forth herein, the Court finds it would be futile to strike 18 the unsigned, undated amended complaint and provide Plaintiff with another opportunity to refile 19 it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). 20 Lack of Federal Jurisdiction 21 “Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction 22 exists, even when no party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010). A 23 federal court is presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction, and a plaintiff bears the burden of 24 establishing that subject matter jurisdiction is proper. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 25 2 “The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (the ‘1991 Act’) was enacted to restore civil rights limited by then-recent 26 Supreme Court decisions and to ‘strengthen existing protections and remedies available under federal civil rights laws to provide more effective deterrence and adequate compensation for victims of 27 discrimination.’” E.E.O.C. v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, 345 F.3d 742, 747 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). 28 1 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A federal court is obligated to inquire into whether it has subject 2 matter jurisdiction and required to dismiss the action if jurisdiction is lacking. Valdez v. Allstate 3 Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Further, 28 U.S.C. § 4 1915(d) empowers the district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis action that is “frivolous or 5 malicious.” Pratt v. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 1987). A “claim is ‘frivolous within the 6 meaning of section 1915(d) in that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.’” Castillo v. 7 Marshall, 107 F.3d 15, *1 (9th Cir. 1997) (unpublished opinion) (brackets omitted) (quoting 8 Pratt v. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 1987); citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 9 (1992)). 10 The purported amended complaint is devoid of any parties or facts that would permit the 11 Court to find it has jurisdiction. Instead, the purported amended complaint comprises only one 12 page, does not identify any defendants, the basis of any claim, or provide any statement of facts in 13 support of any claim. Plaintiff presumably filed the amended complaint in response to the 14 Court’s April 25, 2023, Screening Order. (See Doc. No. 4 at 4-5). Plaintiff also was advised that 15 his Complaint failed to establish that this Court had jurisdiction. (Id.). Despite being provided 16 guidance on how to cure the deficiencies of his Complaint, Plaintiff made no attempt to do so and 17 instead filed a facially deficient amended complaint curing none of the issues identified by the 18 Court in its April 25, 2023, Screening Order. 19 Failure to Comply with Rule 8 20 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that the complaint contain a “short and 21 plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 22 Rule 8 states that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 23 Even though the complaint is only required to contain a short and plain statement, the complaint 24 still must be facially plausible to survive screening, which requires sufficient factual detail to 25 allow the court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. 26 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th 27 Cir. 2009). A complaint may violate Rule 8 when it “says too little.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 28 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Although 1 detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 2 action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations 3 omitted), and courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart 4 Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 5 The amended complaint is completely devoid of any facts and fails to state any cognizable 6 claim. (See generally Doc. Nos. 1, 5). The April 25, 2023, Screening Order advised Plaintiff that 7 his Complaint did not contain sufficient factual detail for the Court to draw a reasonable inference 8 that any of the named Defendants were liable for any misconduct. (Doc. No. 4 at 4). Despite 9 being advised that his amended complaint must contain more factual detail, Plaintiff elected to 10 file an amended complaint that contains no factual allegations. Even if the district court struck 11 the amended complaint and deemed the Complaint the operative pleading, it also falls woefully 12 short of stating a cognizable claim, does not allege sufficient facts, and cannot possibly place any 13 defendant on fair notice. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 14 (2007); see also McIntosh v. City of L.A., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIST 53641, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jul 21, 15 2005 (citing McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996) (ruling that plaintiff’s 16 complaint did not provide any dates or sufficient facts which would make it “difficult for 17 defendants to frame an answer[.]”); Walker v. Muniz, 2019 WL 2359229, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jun 4, 18 2019) (explaining plaintiff needed to state specific dates in complaint to provide defendants with 19 fair notice). Thus, both the Complaint and purported amended complaint violate Rule 8 of the 20 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Knapp, 738 F.32 1109; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 21 Frivolous 22 The court must dismiss if the court determines at any time that the case is frivolous or 23 malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). “[A] complaint…is frivolous where it lacks an arguable 24 basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U/S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Franklin v. 25 Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984) (when discussing frivolity, the Ninth Circuit 26 found that “an IFP action must have arguable substance in law and fact.”). A blank complaint is 27 without basis in law or fact. Chen v. Human Rights Comm’n, 2019 WL 5430682, at *2 (W.D. 28 Wash. Sept. 9, 2019) (dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint because it was blank and the only named 1 defendant was immune pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment.). 2 Here, like in Chen, there are no factual contentions in Plaintiff’s purported amended 3 complaint, thus there is no arguable basis in law or fact. See Chen, 2019 WL 5430682, at *2. 4 The Court instructed Plaintiff in the April 25, 2023, Screening Order that his amended complaint 5 must contain sufficient facts showing that he is entitled to relief. (Doc. No. 4). Further, Plaintiff 6 was warned that each claim and each defendant’s involvement must be sufficiently alleged in his 7 amended complaint. (Id. at 5:12-13). Despite the Court’s guidance, Plaintiff filed a blank 8 amended complaint that does not identify any parties nor allege any facts. Thus, it fails to 9 establish an arguable basis in law or fact and is facially frivolous. 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 Based on the above, the undersigned finds Plaintiff’s purported amended complaint is 12 wholly deficient and frivolous. Even if the district court considers the initial Complaint, it 13 likewise fails to state a claim against any defendant and invoke this Court’s subject matter 14 jurisdiction. Plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in his initial 15 Complaint. (See Doc. No. 4). Despite the Court’s guidance, Plaintiff elected to file a blank 16 amended complaint and without attempting to cure any of the deficiencies identified by the 17 Screening Order. Because any further leave to amend would be futile, the undersigned 18 recommends that the district court dismiss this action without granting Plaintiff further leave to 19 amend. McKinney v. Baca, 250 F. App’x 781 (9th Cir. 2007) citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 20 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where 21 court has afforded plaintiff one or more opportunities to amend his complaint). 22 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: 23 This action be DISMISSED, all motions to be terminated as moot,3 and the case closed. 24 //// 25 //// 26 3 On May 30, 2023 and May 31, 2023, after filing the amended complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking 27 to consolidate the cases he currently has pending in this Court, for issuance of subpoenas, and access to the Federal Court’s law library as well as an ex parte motion to set aside a default judgement. (Doc. Nos. 6, 28 7). To the extent discernable, the judgment Plaintiff references appears to be a state court judgment. 1 NOTICE 2 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 3 | Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days 4 | of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 5 || objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 6 | Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiffs failure to file objections within the specified time 7 | may result in waiver of her rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 8 | 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 9 Dated: _ August 23, 2023 Wiha Th fares Zack 11 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28