(PS) Rogers v. Valero

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 17, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00488
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICOLE JEAN ROGERS, No. 2:25-cv-00488-DC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST 14 VALERO, et. al., AND DISMISSING WITH LEAVE TO 15 AMEND Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff Nicole Jean Rogers proceeds pro se in this action which was referred to the 19 undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Plaintiff has filed an 20 application in support of her request to proceed in forma pauperis which makes the showing 21 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF No. 2.) The request will be granted. 22 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 23 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 24 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 25 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 26 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 27 (2000). In performing this screening, the court liberally construes a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings. 28 1 See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 2 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam). 3 II. ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT 4 Plaintiff’s complaint names Valero and Sam Bath as defendants.1 The complaint is 5 devoid of factual allegations, other than plaintiff’s assertion that “laws were changed to require 6 gas tanks to be redesigned or rebuilt to meet standards to keep gasoline from polluting the earth.” 7 (ECF No. 1 at 5.) 8 III. PLEADING STANDARDS 9 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 10 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 11 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 12 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 13 (2000). 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 accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 16 baseless or fanciful, and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 17 See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 18 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 19 Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines 20 v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory 21 allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council 22 v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 23 action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 24 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 25

1 Plaintiff lists herself as the named plaintiff “c/o Hayes Family, Enrique Rubio, Rogers Family 26 Trust 25050.” Plaintiff is informed that in federal court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1654, “parties 27 may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” Thus, plaintiff is not 28 permitted to represent anyone other than herself in this action. 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 facial 3 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 4 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se 5 litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend 6 unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 7 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Lopez v. 8 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 9 IV. THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM AND FAILS TO SET FORTH A BASIS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION 10

11 Plaintiff has neither alleged a specific cause of action nor provided any facts from which 12 the court can infer a cause of action over which the court has original jurisdiction. The focus of 13 plaintiff’s complaint seems to be the gas tanks at an unspecified Valero as plaintiff references a 14 law regarding the design of gas tanks and requests that the property “be put back into the 15 ownership name.” (ECF No. 1 at 6.) It appears, however, that the court may not have federal 16 question jurisdiction over this action as plaintiff does not assert any federal claims against any 17 defendant, and there is no diversity of citizenship jurisdiction because both plaintiff and 18 defendants are citizens of California. See McDaniel v. Hinch, No. 2:17-cv 02448-KJM-CKD 19 (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2018) (“[W]ith no stated claim triggering either diversity or federal question 20 jurisdiction, the complaint is properly subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction”). 21 V. CONCLUSION 22 The complaint must be dismissed, but plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended 23 complaint. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely 24 clear that no amendment can cure the defect… a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the 25 complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.”). An 26 amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint.” Local Rule 220 requires that an 27 amended complaint be complete by itself without reference to any prior pleading. 28 1 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 2 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 3 2. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend. 4 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 5 complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6 and the Local Rules of Practice; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance 7 with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 8 | Dated: April 17, 2025 / hice ANKE) flo ° CAROLYN K DELANEY? 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 | cxpRogers.488.sem 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28