1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHELLA CRISTINA ALFARO Case No. 2:24-cv-3465-TLN-CSK BRITTANY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. 14 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICE/STATE 15 OF CALIFORNIA, (ECF Nos. 1, 2) 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff Michella Cristina Alfaro Brittany is representing herself in this action and 19 seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF 20 No. 2.) For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s IFP application be 21 denied, and the Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 22 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 23 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that the court may authorize the commencement, 24 prosecution or defense of any suit without prepayment of fees or security “by a person 25 who submits an affidavit stating the person is “unable to pay such fees or give security 26 therefor.” This affidavit is to include, among other things, a statement of all assets the 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 person possesses. Id. The IFP statute does not itself define what constitutes insufficient 2 assets. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). In Escobedo, 3 the Ninth Circuit stated that an affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient 4 where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay court costs and still afford the necessities of 5 life. Id. “One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis 6 statute.” Id. Nonetheless, a party seeking IFP status must allege poverty “with some 7 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. According to the United States Department 8 of Health and Human Services, the current poverty guideline for a household of one (not 9 residing in Alaska or Hawaii) is $15,650.00. See U.S. Dpt. Health & Human Service 10 (available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines). 11 Here, Plaintiff’s IFP application indicates Plaintiff receives a yearly gross income 12 of $91,604.00. ECF No. 2 at 1 ¶ 2. Plaintiff also affirmatively answers she receives 13 income from the following sources: “[b]usiness, profession, or other self-employment,” 14 “[r]ent payments, interest, or dividends,” “pension, annuity, or life insurance payments,” 15 “[d]isability, or worker’s compensation payments,” “[g]ifts, or inheritances,” and “[a]ny 16 other sources.” Id. at 1 ¶ 3. When asked to describe each source of money and amount 17 received, Plaintiff only indicates she receives “[d]isability[,] [a]nnuity[,] [l]ife insurance[,] 18 and [i]nheritance.” Id. Despite Plaintiff’s failure to disclose the amount received for each 19 of these sources, it is clear Plaintiff has failed to establish that she is entitled to 20 prosecute this case without paying the required fees. Plaintiff’s gross household income 21 is close to six times the 2025 poverty guideline.2 Given this, the Court cannot find
22 2 The Court also notes Plaintiff has recently filed multiple requests to proceed in forma 23 pauperis in other actions, which have pending findings and recommendations recommending IFP status be denied and indicate additional sources of income not listed 24 in the IFP application in this action. Compare ECF No. 2 at 2 ¶ 4 (stating $5.00 in checking or savings account), with Michella C. Alfaro Brittany v. Child Support Services, 25 et al., No. 2:24-cv-3396-DC-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2025) (recommending IFP 26 request be denied and ordered to pay the filing fee and indicating Plaintiff has $139,000 in her bank account); Michella C. Alfaro Brittany v. Annalise Burney, No. 2:24-cv-3464- 27 DAD-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2025) (recommending IFP request be denied and ordered to pay the filing fee); Michella C. Alfaro Brittany v. Yolo County Police 28 1 Plaintiff unable to pay the filing fee. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. In addition, the 2 Court also finds Plaintiff’s IFP application should be denied because the action is facially 3 frivolous and meritless. 4 “‘A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it 5 appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without 6 merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. 7 First Nat. Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Dep’t of 8 Child Support Servs., 584 Fed. App’x. 638 (9th Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not 9 abuse its discretion by denying McGee's request to proceed IFP because it appears 10 from the face of the amended complaint that McGee's action is frivolous or without 11 merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District 12 Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine 13 whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is 14 without merit, the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma 15 pauperis.”). Because it appears from the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint that this action is 16 also frivolous and is without merit as discussed in more detail below, the Court 17 recommends Plaintiff’s IFP motion be denied for this reason as well. 18 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 19 Plaintiff’s Complaint warrants dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)’s 20 required pre-answer screening. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen 21 every in forma pauperis proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is 22 “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks 23 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is 25 legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. 26
27 Department, et al., No. 2:25-cv-0778-DAD-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2025) (recommending IFP request be denied and ordered to pay the filing fee and indicating 28 Plaintiff has $65,000 in her checking account). 1 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 2 court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are 3 clearly baseless or fanciful, and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to 4 the plaintiff. See id. at 326-27; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 5 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 6 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 7 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post-Iqbal).
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 MICHELLA CRISTINA ALFARO Case No. 2:24-cv-3465-TLN-CSK BRITTANY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. 14 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICE/STATE 15 OF CALIFORNIA, (ECF Nos. 1, 2) 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff Michella Cristina Alfaro Brittany is representing herself in this action and 19 seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF 20 No. 2.) For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s IFP application be 21 denied, and the Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 22 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 23 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that the court may authorize the commencement, 24 prosecution or defense of any suit without prepayment of fees or security “by a person 25 who submits an affidavit stating the person is “unable to pay such fees or give security 26 therefor.” This affidavit is to include, among other things, a statement of all assets the 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 person possesses. Id. The IFP statute does not itself define what constitutes insufficient 2 assets. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). In Escobedo, 3 the Ninth Circuit stated that an affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient 4 where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay court costs and still afford the necessities of 5 life. Id. “One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis 6 statute.” Id. Nonetheless, a party seeking IFP status must allege poverty “with some 7 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. According to the United States Department 8 of Health and Human Services, the current poverty guideline for a household of one (not 9 residing in Alaska or Hawaii) is $15,650.00. See U.S. Dpt. Health & Human Service 10 (available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines). 11 Here, Plaintiff’s IFP application indicates Plaintiff receives a yearly gross income 12 of $91,604.00. ECF No. 2 at 1 ¶ 2. Plaintiff also affirmatively answers she receives 13 income from the following sources: “[b]usiness, profession, or other self-employment,” 14 “[r]ent payments, interest, or dividends,” “pension, annuity, or life insurance payments,” 15 “[d]isability, or worker’s compensation payments,” “[g]ifts, or inheritances,” and “[a]ny 16 other sources.” Id. at 1 ¶ 3. When asked to describe each source of money and amount 17 received, Plaintiff only indicates she receives “[d]isability[,] [a]nnuity[,] [l]ife insurance[,] 18 and [i]nheritance.” Id. Despite Plaintiff’s failure to disclose the amount received for each 19 of these sources, it is clear Plaintiff has failed to establish that she is entitled to 20 prosecute this case without paying the required fees. Plaintiff’s gross household income 21 is close to six times the 2025 poverty guideline.2 Given this, the Court cannot find
22 2 The Court also notes Plaintiff has recently filed multiple requests to proceed in forma 23 pauperis in other actions, which have pending findings and recommendations recommending IFP status be denied and indicate additional sources of income not listed 24 in the IFP application in this action. Compare ECF No. 2 at 2 ¶ 4 (stating $5.00 in checking or savings account), with Michella C. Alfaro Brittany v. Child Support Services, 25 et al., No. 2:24-cv-3396-DC-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2025) (recommending IFP 26 request be denied and ordered to pay the filing fee and indicating Plaintiff has $139,000 in her bank account); Michella C. Alfaro Brittany v. Annalise Burney, No. 2:24-cv-3464- 27 DAD-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2025) (recommending IFP request be denied and ordered to pay the filing fee); Michella C. Alfaro Brittany v. Yolo County Police 28 1 Plaintiff unable to pay the filing fee. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. In addition, the 2 Court also finds Plaintiff’s IFP application should be denied because the action is facially 3 frivolous and meritless. 4 “‘A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it 5 appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without 6 merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. 7 First Nat. Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Dep’t of 8 Child Support Servs., 584 Fed. App’x. 638 (9th Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not 9 abuse its discretion by denying McGee's request to proceed IFP because it appears 10 from the face of the amended complaint that McGee's action is frivolous or without 11 merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District 12 Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine 13 whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is 14 without merit, the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma 15 pauperis.”). Because it appears from the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint that this action is 16 also frivolous and is without merit as discussed in more detail below, the Court 17 recommends Plaintiff’s IFP motion be denied for this reason as well. 18 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 19 Plaintiff’s Complaint warrants dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)’s 20 required pre-answer screening. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen 21 every in forma pauperis proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is 22 “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks 23 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is 25 legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. 26
27 Department, et al., No. 2:25-cv-0778-DAD-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2025) (recommending IFP request be denied and ordered to pay the filing fee and indicating 28 Plaintiff has $65,000 in her checking account). 1 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 2 court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are 3 clearly baseless or fanciful, and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to 4 the plaintiff. See id. at 326-27; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 5 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 6 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 7 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post-Iqbal). 8 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 9 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 10 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does 11 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); 12 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 13 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough 14 facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 15 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court 16 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 17 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the 18 complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be 19 cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 20 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). 21 III. THE COMPLAINT 22 The Complaint names “Child Support Service/State of California” as the sole 23 defendant in this action. Compl. at 2 (ECF No. 1). The entirety of the allegations in the 24 Complaint are as follows: 25 I took a DNA maternity test with Wellspace Health Roseville, CA 95661 and they said Chana Alfaro and her 9 brothers and 26 sisters where my children and Lil Marco Alfaro myself and my son Anthony R. Alfaro adopted him. He is a victim of 27 domestic violence and child abuse. 28 Compl. at 5. For relief, Plaintiff states she “would like it to be known on Court Documents 1 with 3351 Power Inn Rd. Sacramento, CA 95821 Family Court of California Child 2 Support Service/State of California that these 10 children are mine.” Id. at 6. 3 IV. DISCUSSION 4 A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 5 The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Federal courts are 6 courts of limited jurisdiction and may hear only those cases authorized by federal law. 7 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Jurisdiction is a threshold 8 inquiry, and “[f]ederal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary 9 appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 10 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 (1986)); see 11 Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 12 (9th Cir. 1988). Without jurisdiction, the district court cannot decide the merits of a case 13 or order any relief and must dismiss the case. See Morongo, 858 F.2d at 1380. A federal 14 court’s jurisdiction may be established in one of two ways: actions arising under federal 15 law or those between citizens of different states in which the alleged damages exceed 16 $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. “Subject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived or 17 forfeited,” and “courts are obligated to consider sua sponte” subject matter jurisdiction 18 even when not raised by the parties. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012). 19 The Complaint does not establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See 20 Compl. The Complaint states no basis for federal court jurisdiction, and none is 21 apparent. Although the Complaint indicates the basis for subject matter jurisdiction is 22 federal question based on “civil rights – adoption, natural born children”, no federal 23 cause of action is clearly asserted, and no federal claims are suggested by the facts, to 24 the extent the facts are discernible. See Compl. at 3-4. The Complaint also fails to 25 establish diversity jurisdiction. First, Plaintiff does not satisfy the amount in controversy 26 requirement. See Compl. at 4 (stating amount in controversy is “$15,000 -? 2.5 million.” 27 Compl. at 5; see also ECF No. 1-1 (civil cover sheet indicating monetary demand is 28 $15,000.00). Second, Plaintiff also does not establish complete diversity of citizenship. 1 See Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Section 2 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of 3 a different state than each of the defendants.”). On the face of the Complaint, all parties 4 appear to be citizens of California. Compl. at 4; see also ECF No. 1-1 (civil cover sheet 5 marking both Plaintiff and Defendant as citizens of California). Because there is no 6 diversity of citizenship established here, the Court finds that it also lacks subject matter 7 jurisdiction based on diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court recommends this action 8 be dismissed without leave to amend because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 9 over this action and amendment would be futile. 10 B. Failure to Comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 11 Plaintiff’s Complaint also does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim 12 as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In order to give fair notice of the claims 13 and the grounds on which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of 14 particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v. 15 Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, the Complaint does not contain facts 16 supporting any cognizable legal claim against Defendant. The Complaint consists of 17 vague and conclusory allegations that fail to establish Plaintiff’s causes of action. 18 Because the Complaint is unintelligible, granting leave to amend in this case would not 19 be fruitful. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, even a pro se 20 litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a claim plainly and 21 succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The 22 Complaint therefore fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and is subject to 23 dismissal. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming 24 dismissal of complaint where “one cannot determine from the complaint who is being 25 sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”). 26 C. Leave to Amend 27 In considering whether leave to amend should be granted, the Court finds that the 28 Complaint is without merit and consists entirely of allegations with no basis in law. See 1 | generally Compl. The Complaint does not contain facts supporting any cognizable legal 2 | claim against Defendant. In light of the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the 3 | Complaint’s deficiencies, granting leave to amend would be futile. The Complaint should 4 | therefore be dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cato 5 | v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995). 6 | V. CONCLUSION 7 Based upon the findings above, it is RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be DENIED; 9 2. Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED without leave to amend; 10 and 11 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 13 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 | 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 15 | written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should 16 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 17 || reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14 18 | days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time 19 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 20 | 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 22 || Dated: April 10, 2025 C i s 23 CHI SOO KIM 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 || 4, britts4e5.24 27 28