1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OLIVIA JOHNSON, No. 2:25-cv-03403-TLN-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GINA ADABI, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant 18 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed 19 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a declaration, including a statement of income and expenses, 20 averring she is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The 21 motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. However, for the reasons provided below, the 22 Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint is legally deficient and will grant Plaintiff leave to file an 23 amended complaint. 24 I. SCREENING 25 A. Legal Standard 26 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 27 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 28 1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In 2 reviewing the complaint, the Court is guided by the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil 3 Procedure. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules- 4 policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 5 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 6 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 7 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 8 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 9 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 11 the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 12 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 13 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 14 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 15 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 16 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 17 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 18 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 19 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 20 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 21 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 22 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 23 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 24 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94. However, the 25 court need not accept as true legal conclusions, even if cast as factual allegations. See Moss v. 26 U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). A formulaic recitation of the elements of 27 a cause of action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 28 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 1 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 2 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 3 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 4 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 5 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 6 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Akhtar v. 7 Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1213 (9th Cir. 2012). 8 B. The Complaint 9 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on November 24, 2025. ECF No. 1. 10 The complaint names two defendants: 1) Gina Abadi; and 2) Hong Yi Zeng. The entirety of the 11 complaint is three sentences. Plaintiff alleges Defendants conspired to violate her due process 12 rights, states this Court has jurisdiction, and demands $1 million in damages. ECF No. 1. 13 C. Analysis 14 Under Rule 8, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for 15 federal jurisdiction, (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief, and 16 (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s complaint does not cite a 17 federal statute that confers jurisdiction, however Plaintiff alleges a violation of due process and 18 thus could be attempting to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint contains 19 a request for monetary damages. However, Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a short and 20 plain statement demonstrating she is entitled to such relief. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to plead 21 any facts in support of her claim. It is unclear who the Defendants are, or what they allegedly did 22 to violate Plaintiff’s rights. There are no dates pled, rather just a conclusory assertion of a 23 conspiracy to violate due process rights. 24 Plaintiff’s complaint is not required to contain detailed factual allegations, however in its 25 current form the complaint is too lacking in facts to state a plausible claim and to put Defendants 26 on notice. “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual 27 allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 28 accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation and quotation omitted). “A 1 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to 2 draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 3 (emphasis added).
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 OLIVIA JOHNSON, No. 2:25-cv-03403-TLN-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GINA ADABI, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant 18 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed 19 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a declaration, including a statement of income and expenses, 20 averring she is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The 21 motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. However, for the reasons provided below, the 22 Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint is legally deficient and will grant Plaintiff leave to file an 23 amended complaint. 24 I. SCREENING 25 A. Legal Standard 26 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 27 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 28 1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In 2 reviewing the complaint, the Court is guided by the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil 3 Procedure. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules- 4 policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 5 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 6 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 7 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 8 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 9 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 11 the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 12 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 13 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 14 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 15 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 16 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 17 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 18 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 19 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 20 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 21 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 22 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 23 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 24 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94. However, the 25 court need not accept as true legal conclusions, even if cast as factual allegations. See Moss v. 26 U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). A formulaic recitation of the elements of 27 a cause of action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 28 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 1 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 2 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 3 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 4 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 5 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 6 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Akhtar v. 7 Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1213 (9th Cir. 2012). 8 B. The Complaint 9 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on November 24, 2025. ECF No. 1. 10 The complaint names two defendants: 1) Gina Abadi; and 2) Hong Yi Zeng. The entirety of the 11 complaint is three sentences. Plaintiff alleges Defendants conspired to violate her due process 12 rights, states this Court has jurisdiction, and demands $1 million in damages. ECF No. 1. 13 C. Analysis 14 Under Rule 8, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for 15 federal jurisdiction, (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief, and 16 (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s complaint does not cite a 17 federal statute that confers jurisdiction, however Plaintiff alleges a violation of due process and 18 thus could be attempting to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint contains 19 a request for monetary damages. However, Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a short and 20 plain statement demonstrating she is entitled to such relief. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to plead 21 any facts in support of her claim. It is unclear who the Defendants are, or what they allegedly did 22 to violate Plaintiff’s rights. There are no dates pled, rather just a conclusory assertion of a 23 conspiracy to violate due process rights. 24 Plaintiff’s complaint is not required to contain detailed factual allegations, however in its 25 current form the complaint is too lacking in facts to state a plausible claim and to put Defendants 26 on notice. “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual 27 allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 28 accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation and quotation omitted). “A 1 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to 2 draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 3 (emphasis added). 4 If Plaintiff is asserting a claim under § 1983, she must describe the constitutional or 5 federal statutory right allegedly infringed. “[Section] 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive 6 rights,’ but merely provides ‘a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” 7 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393–94 (1989). The elements of a claim under § 1983 are: 1) 8 that the defendants were acting under color of state law; and 2) that defendants deprived plaintiff 9 of rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes. Benavidez v. County of San Diego, 993 10 F.3d 1134, 1144 (9th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that either Defendant is a 11 state actor. Generally, private parties are not acting under color of state law. See Price v. Hawaii, 12 939 F.2d 702, 707–08 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 Plaintiff’s complaint also fails to allege sufficient facts to determine if venue is proper. 14 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in:
15 (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents 16 of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving 17 rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 18 is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided 19 in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's 20 personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
21 Plaintiff has not alleged the residency of the Defendants, and Plaintiff’s listed address is in 22 Hawaii. There are no facts alleged as to where the alleged violation of due process or conspiracy 23 occurred. 24 II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 25 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, it must contain a short and plain statement of 26 Plaintiff’s claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially numbered 27 paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each paragraph 28 1 having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the complaint. 2 Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where possible. Rule 10(b). 3 As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. 4 They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 5 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 6 The amended complaint must not force the Court or the defendants to guess at the factual 7 or legal basis for the claim. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996) 8 (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 9 facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 10 complaint should contain specific allegations as to the actions of each named defendant rather 11 than making conclusory allegations. The amended complaint should specifically refer to the legal 12 basis for Plaintiff’s claim and demonstrate that she is entitled to relief. 13 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s 14 amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 15 reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 16 complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline 17 Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint 18 supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & 19 Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 20 original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 21 alleged. 22 Plaintiff’s amended complaint must address the issues set forth herein. It must 23 sufficiently plead jurisdiction and venue. Plaintiff must allege enough factual content in support 24 of her claims to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 28 2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint ] that addresses the defects set forth above. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this 2 order, the undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed. 3 3. Alternatively, if Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, Plaintiff may file a notice 4 of voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil 5 Procedure. 6 SO ORDERED. 7 || DATED: December 2, 2025
9 SEAN C. RIORDAN 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28