Smith v. City of Fresno

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 CANDACE SMITH, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0420 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 CITY OF FRESNO, et al., ) THE CASE ) 15 Defendants. ) (Doc. 4) ) 16

17 Candace Smith seeks to hold several the defendants—including the City of Fresno, Naomi 18 Chavez, Hedi Briggs, and the FAX Bus System—liable for “refusal to pay doctor bills [and] injury 19 compensation” following an “attempted bus crash” while Plaintiff was a passenger. (Doc. 1 at 4.) 20 Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Doc. 4.) 22 The magistrate judge observed that Plaintiff indicated the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction was 23 “federal question,” but found “Plaintiff does not allege any violation arising under the Constitution, 24 laws, or treaties of the United States upon which relief in this civil action may be premised.” (Doc. 4 at 25 4.) The magistrate judge noted that “Plaintiff also does not cite or otherwise reference any federal laws 26 to establish federal question jurisdiction.” (Id.) Rather, the magistrate judge observed that it appeared 27 Plaintiff sought to state a personal injury claim, which would arise under state law. (Id.) Moreover, the 28 magistrate judge found Plaintiff’s complaint did not comply with the requirements of Rule 8 of the 1 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Plaintiff did not identify “what happened, including the 2 || circumstance, when and where the events happened, or who was involved.” (/d. at 3.) Because 3 || Plaintiff has repeatedly been advised of the pleading and jurisdictional requirements, the magistrate 4 || judge found leave to amend would be futile. Ud. at 4-5.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 5 recommended the Court dismiss the action without leave to amend. (Jd. at 5.) 6 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified her that any 7 || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 4 at 5.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to fil 8 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’ 9 || factual findings’ on appeal.” (Ud. at 6, quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 10 || 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 11 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 12 || Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 13 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated April 21, 2025 (Doc. 4) are ADOPTED in 15 full. 16 2. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 17 3. Leave to amend is DENIED as futile. 18 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 19 20 ||} IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 |! Dated: _ June 13, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wan 22 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28