1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARNAE BIGGINS, No. 2:24-cv-02736 TLN AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WINN COMPANIES LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) will therefore be granted. 21 I. Screening 22 A. Legal Standard 23 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 26 Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether the complaint is frivolous, by drafting the 27 complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). The 28 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current- 1 rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 2 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 3 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 4 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 5 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 6 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 8 the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 9 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 10 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 11 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 12 court will (1) accept as true all the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are 13 clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 14 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 15 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 16 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 17 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 18 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 19 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 20 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 21 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 22 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 23 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 24 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 25 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 26 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 27 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 28 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 1 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 2 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 3 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 4 to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. 5 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in 6 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 7 B. The Complaint 8 Plaintiff’s complaint contains minimal information. ECF No. 1. On the form complaint 9 she marks “Federal question” as the basis for jurisdiction, and when asked to list the basis for 10 federal question jurisdiction she writes “illegal eviction by an out of state company.” Id. at 4. 11 Under the “Statement of Claim” section she wrote “illegal eviction[,] illegal lockout[,] breach of 12 contract.” The alleged violation occurred on August 8, 2024. Id. at 6. When asked to identify 13 the facts underlying her claims, plaintiff wrote “Winn companies accepted money and agreement 14 and still [unintelligible] lockout of plaintiff.” Id. When asked to explain her damages, plaintiff 15 wrote “Homeless” and when asked to identify the relief sought, plaintiff wrote “Return of moneis, 16 property and monetary damages.” Id. at 6. 17 C. Analysis 18 Plaintiff’s complaint suffers from several defects that prevent it from being served at this 19 time. First, the complaint does not contain a “short and plain” statement setting forth the basis for 20 federal jurisdiction, plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, or the relief that is sought, even though those 21 things are required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (3). The exact nature of what happened to plaintiff 22 is unclear from the complaint, which contains very minimal information. The court cannot tell 23 from examining the complaint what legal wrong was done to plaintiff, by whom and when, or 24 how any alleged harm is connected to the relief plaintiff seeks. 25 Second, there is no apparent basis for federal jurisdiction. “Federal courts are courts of 26 limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, (1994). In 27 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a)
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 CHARNAE BIGGINS, No. 2:24-cv-02736 TLN AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WINN COMPANIES LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) will therefore be granted. 21 I. Screening 22 A. Legal Standard 23 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 26 Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether the complaint is frivolous, by drafting the 27 complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). The 28 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current- 1 rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 2 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 3 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 4 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 5 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 6 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 8 the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 9 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 10 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 11 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 12 court will (1) accept as true all the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are 13 clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 14 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 15 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 16 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 17 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 18 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 19 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 20 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 21 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 22 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 23 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 24 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 25 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 26 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 27 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 28 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 1 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 2 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 3 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 4 to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. 5 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in 6 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 7 B. The Complaint 8 Plaintiff’s complaint contains minimal information. ECF No. 1. On the form complaint 9 she marks “Federal question” as the basis for jurisdiction, and when asked to list the basis for 10 federal question jurisdiction she writes “illegal eviction by an out of state company.” Id. at 4. 11 Under the “Statement of Claim” section she wrote “illegal eviction[,] illegal lockout[,] breach of 12 contract.” The alleged violation occurred on August 8, 2024. Id. at 6. When asked to identify 13 the facts underlying her claims, plaintiff wrote “Winn companies accepted money and agreement 14 and still [unintelligible] lockout of plaintiff.” Id. When asked to explain her damages, plaintiff 15 wrote “Homeless” and when asked to identify the relief sought, plaintiff wrote “Return of moneis, 16 property and monetary damages.” Id. at 6. 17 C. Analysis 18 Plaintiff’s complaint suffers from several defects that prevent it from being served at this 19 time. First, the complaint does not contain a “short and plain” statement setting forth the basis for 20 federal jurisdiction, plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, or the relief that is sought, even though those 21 things are required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (3). The exact nature of what happened to plaintiff 22 is unclear from the complaint, which contains very minimal information. The court cannot tell 23 from examining the complaint what legal wrong was done to plaintiff, by whom and when, or 24 how any alleged harm is connected to the relief plaintiff seeks. 25 Second, there is no apparent basis for federal jurisdiction. “Federal courts are courts of 26 limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, (1994). In 27 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a), “Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction over two general 28 types of cases: cases that “aris[e] under” federal law, § 1331, and cases in which the amount in 1 controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is diversity of citizenship among the parties, § 1332(a). 2 These jurisdictional grants are known as “federal-question jurisdiction” and “diversity 3 jurisdiction,” respectively. Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019), 4 reh’g denied, No. 17-1471, 2019 WL 3538074 (U.S. Aug. 5, 2019). A case “arises under” federal 5 law for jurisdictional purposes either where federal law creates the cause of action or “where the 6 vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.” 7 Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 8 Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)). “[T]he 9 presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint 10 rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on 11 the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id. at 1089 (quoting Rivet v. Regions 12 Bank, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998)). 13 Plaintiff asserts federal question jurisdiction, but she does not bring any federal claims. 14 There cannot be federal question jurisdiction unless there is an allegation that a federal law was 15 violated. Plaintiff also fails to allege diversity jurisdiction because she does not allege an amount 16 in controversy. Plaintiff’s reference to an “out of state corporation” indicates that she is possibly 17 trying to allege diversity jurisdiction, but diversity jurisdiction only exists when the controversy 18 exceeds $75,000 in value. It is possible that plaintiff can cure this defect, and so she will be given 19 leave to amend. 20 II. Amending the Complaint 21 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts 22 establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction. In addition, it must contain a short and plain 23 statement of plaintiff’s claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially 24 numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each 25 paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the 26 complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where possible. 27 Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their complaint in the 28 proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4 200), 1 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 2 Plaintiff must avoid excessive repetition of the same allegations. Plaintiff must avoid 3 narrative and storytelling. That is, the complaint should not include every detail of what 4 happened, nor recount the details of conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim), nor 5 give a running account of plaintiff’s hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint should 6 contain only those facts needed to show how the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff. 7 The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is 8 being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) 9 (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 10 facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 11 complaint must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ 12 which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not 13 require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for 14 what.” Id. at 1179. 15 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading to make plaintiff’s 16 amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete without reference to any 17 prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a rule, an amended complaint supersedes the 18 original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 19 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 20 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1476, pp. 556 57 (2d ed. 1990)). 21 Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement 22 of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 23 III. Pro Se Plaintiff’s Summary 24 It is not clear that this case can proceed in federal court. The court cannot tell from your 25 complaint what legal harm was done to you. Because the complaint as written does not clearly 26 tell the court the facts of your case and does not establish federal jurisdiction, it will not be served 27 on defendants. Your lawsuit cannot proceed unless you fix the problems with your complaint. 28 You are being given 30 days to submit an amended complaint that provides a proper basis 1 | for federal jurisdiction and gives the court enough facts to explain the basis for your legal claims. 2 || If you submit an amended complaint, it needs to explain in simple terms what laws or legal rights 3 || of yours were violated, by whom and how, and how those violations impacted each plaintiff. 4 | Without this information, the court cannot tell what legal claims you are trying to bring against 5 || the defendants. If you do not submit an amended complaint by the deadline, the undersigned will 6 || recommend that the case be dismissed. 7 IV. Conclusion 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9} 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 10 | 2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that 11 || names defendants who are amenable to suit, and which complies with the instructions given 12 | above. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned may recommend that 13 || this action be dismissed. 14 | DATED: October 17, 2024 ~ 15 Chthwen— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28