Smith v. City of Fresno

Opinion

CANDACE SMITH, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0420 JLT BAM ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CITY OF FRESNO, et al., ) THE CASE ) Defendants. ) (Doc. 4) )

Candace Smith seeks to hold several the defendants—including the City of Fresno, Naomi Chavez, Hedi Briggs, and the FAX Bus System—liable for “refusal to pay doctor bills [and] injury compensation” following an “attempted bus crash” while Plaintiff was a passenger. (Doc. 1 at 4.) Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Doc. 4.) The magistrate judge observed that Plaintiff indicated the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction was “federal question,” but found “Plaintiff does not allege any violation arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States upon which relief in this civil action may be premised.” (Doc. 4 at 4.) The magistrate judge noted that “Plaintiff also does not cite or otherwise reference any federal laws to establish federal question jurisdiction.” (Id.) Rather, the magistrate judge observed that it appeared Plaintiff sought to state a personal injury claim, which would arise under state law. (Id.) Moreover, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff’s complaint did not comply with the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Plaintiff did not identify “what happened, including the circumstance, when and where the events happened, or who was involved.” (/d. at 3.) Because Plaintiff has repeatedly been advised of the pleading and jurisdictional requirements, the magistrate judge found leave to amend would be futile. Ud. at 4-5.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action without leave to amend. (Jd. at 5.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified her that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 4 at 5.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to fil objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’ factual findings’ on appeal.” (Ud. at 6, quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated April 21, 2025 (Doc. 4) are ADOPTED in full. 2. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 3. Leave to amend is DENIED as futile. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. } IT IS SO ORDERED. ! Dated: _ June 13, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wan TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE