Keuntea Jemayne Vance v. Los Angeles Department of Child Support

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 20, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-04392
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION

12 KEUNTEA JEMAYNE VANCE, No. CV 23-04392-DMG-BFM 13 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 14 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT 15 OF CHILD SUPPORT,

16 Defendant. 17 18 On March 20, 2023, in Case No. CV 23-02074-DMG-BFM, Plaintiff filed a 19 pro se civil rights complaint against the Los Angeles Department of Child 20 Support. In his Complaint, he asserts that Defendant violated his civil rights, 21 the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2403, and 18 U.S.C. § 242, and he 22 presents state law claims for breach of contract and the torts of defamation, 23 intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander, and invasion of privacy. [ 24 [Case No. 23-02074, Doc. ## 1, 6.] Plaintiff’s claims were based on allegations 25 that Defendant unlawfully garnished his wages, suspended his passport and 26 driver’s license, and otherwise attempted to collect unpaid child support without 27 a valid contract to do so. [Case No. 23-02074, Doc. # 6 at 2.] After screening the 28 1 2 upon which relief can be granted, dismissed the complaint, and, in light of 3 Plaintiff’s pro se status, granted leave to amend. [Case No. 23-02074,Doc. # 6 4 at 3-4.] Plaintiff then filed a first amended complaint. [Case No. 23-02074, Doc. 5 # 9.] After screening the first amended complaint, the Court again found that 6 the allegations failed to state a claim. The Court also determined that further 7 leave to amend would be futile. [Case No. 23-02074, Doc. # 11 at 1.] The Court 8 denied Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the action 9 without prejudice. [Case No. 23-02074, Doc. 11.] 10 Plaintiff filed this action on June 5, 2023, again naming the Los Angeles 11 Department of Child Support as the only Defendant. [Doc. # 1.] This time he 12 paid the full filing fee. [Doc. 1.] Along with his Complaint, Plaintiff submitted 13 an Emergency Motion for declaratory judgment, temporary restraining order, 14 and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief as to the allegedly fraudulent 15 contract that is the subject of the Complaint. [Doc. # 2.] The Court construed 16 the Emergency Motion as a motion for a temporary restraining order and denied 17 it. The Court found among other things, that even if Plaintiff could show 18 irreparable injury, “there is no likelihood of success on the merits of his claims.” 19 [Doc. # 7 at 2 (emphasis added).] The Court observed that it had “previously 20 dismissed these [same] claims against the same defendant without prejudice” 21 in Case No. 23-02074, because Plaintiff had failed to state a federal claim, and 22 because he had failed to invoke diversity jurisdiction. [Doc. # 7 at 3.] 23 The Complaint in this action fails for the same reason that the one in the 24 prior case did. In fact, but for the addition of numerous exhibits, the Complaint 25 here is identical to the Complaint in Case No. 23-02074.1 (Compare Case No. 26 27 1 The complaint in Case No. 23-02074 also included a handful of pages (cont’d . . .) 28 2 1 2 has already twice determined in Case No. 23-02074 that Plaintiff’s allegations 3 and claims fail to state a claim for relief, and has also determined with respect 4 to the Emergency Motion that there is no likelihood of success on the merits of 5 those identical claims in this action. 6 The Court can dismiss a case or claim at any time—even if, as here, the 7 litigant paid the filing fee in full—if the action is so wholly insubstantial or 8 obviously frivolous that it fails to confer jurisdiction. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 9 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (a “paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ 10 does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction and may be dismissed sua 11 sponte before service of process”); Franklin v. State of Oregon, State Welfare 12 Division, 662 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir. 1981) (dismissal prior to service appropriate 13 even in paid cases, where claims are insufficient to confer jurisdiction); Bell v. 14 Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946) (court lacks subject matter jurisdiction where 15 claim is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous”).) 16 Such treatment is appropriate here. Plaintiff received detailed screening 17 orders in Case No. 23-02074 explaining the obvious defects with his pleadings. 18 He failed to cure those flaws and instead has merely repeated his insufficient 19 claims—first in the amended complaint in Case No. 23-02074, and now in this 20 action. Because his claims are wholly insubstantial, his case will be dismissed. 21 See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (a claim is “frivolous” for these 22 purposes “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact”). 23 24 providing information similar to that found on a civil cover sheet that did not 25 add anything to the allegations and claims. (See Case No. 23-02074, Doc. # 1 at 1-5.) 26

27 2 The Court refers to the ECF-generated page numbers when referencing these documents. 28 3 1 A pro se litigant is ordinarily entitled to leave to amend a defective 2 || complaint so that he has an additional chance to state a proper claim for relief. 3 || Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000). But that rule does not apply 4 || when “the basic facts are alleged and have been analyzed” from a litigant’s 5 || pleadings and it is apparent that that Plaintiff “cannot cure the flaws” in his 6 || claims. Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002). Such 7 || 1s the case here. Plaintiff has already been given two opportunities to amend 8 || his claims, and yet he continues to file pleadings that do not address the most 9 || basic problems with his claim. Lopez, 203 F.3d 1122. There is no reason to 10 || think he would do so, if he were given one more chance. 11 For the reasons given in the Court’s prior orders, Plaintiff has offered no 12 || basis to conclude that he has any cognizable federal legal claim against 13 || Defendant, or any other person or entity, and diversity jurisdiction does not 14 || exist. (See Case No. 23-02074, Doc. # 11 at 2.) For these reasons, this action is 15 || hereby DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend.’ Jn 17 || DATED: July 20, 2023 A _ HOLLY M. GEE 18 UNITED®"STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 3 On July 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, which is DENIED as moot. [Doc. # 8.] To the extent the “motion” is intended as 25 || an amended complaint, it is deficient for the reasons already discussed in this Order, 26 || as it repeats claims that the Los Angeles County Child Support Services fraudulently created a contract with Plaintiffs signature, violated his civil rights, and committed 27 || various state-law torts in connection with its attempts to collect child support from him. 28