Tinee Carraker v. POTUS Donald Trump

Opinion

3 4 TINEE CARRAKER, Case No.: 26-cv-2834-BJC-DDL 5 Plaintiff, ORDER:

6 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 7 POTUS DONALD TRUMP, PROCEED IN FORMA PAPUERIS,

8 Defendants. (2) DISMISSING THE 9 COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, 10

11 (3) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 12 APPOINT COUNSEL, AND 13 (4) DENYING AS MOOT 14 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 15 TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE DOCUMENTS. 16

17 [ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4]

18 On May 4, 2025, Tinee Carraker (“Plaintiff), proceeding pro se, filed the operative 19 Complaint, ECF No. 1, an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2, a 20 motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 3, and a motion for leave to electronically file 21 documents. ECF No. 4. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP 22 Motion and DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice. 23 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 24 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 25 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 26 $402.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Civ.L.R. 4.5. A court may authorize the 27 commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, 28 1 including a statement of all their assets, showing that they are unable to pay the fees. See 2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 3 Plaintiff has submitted an application to proceed in district court without paying the 4 filing fee. ECF No. 2. The application indicates that Plaintiff is unemployed, and 5 Plaintiff’s average monthly income is approximately $250. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff indicates 6 no other assets of value in the application. Id. Based on the information provided, the 7 Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the required filing fee. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 8 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED. 9 I. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 10 The Court must screen every civil action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 11 and dismiss any case it finds “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief 12 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.” 13 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 14 (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoner”); Lopez v. 15 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 16 “not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 17 that fails to state a claim”). 18 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 19 Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). To proceed with an action in federal court, a plaintiff 20 must establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. There are two types of subject 21 matter jurisdiction – federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Tesla Motors, 22 Inc. v. Balan, 134 F.4th 558, 560 (9th Cir. 2025). To the extent Plaintiff is asserting claims 23 under federal law, Plaintiff must plead a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution 24 or laws of the United States to invoke federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 25 Section 1331. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). The presence or absence 26 of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which 27 provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question appears on the face of 28 the plaintiff’s complaint. City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895, 903 (9th Cir. 2020). 1 As currently pled, the Complaint fails to assert a colorable claim “arising under’ the 2 Constitution or laws of the United States to invoke federal question jurisdiction pursuant 3 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 513. Although the allegations are difficult 4 ||to discern, the Court construes the Complaint as attempting to assert two claims. First, 5 || Plaintiff appears to ask the Court to “make POTUS enforce the contract.””» ECF No. | at 3. 6 || However, Plaintiff does not identify the contract at issue, the parties to the contract, or any 7 showing a breach or violation of federal law. See id. Second, Plaintiff requests that 8 President direct “the Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent .. . [to] explain himself to 9 you.” /d. Plaintiff does not allege facts explaining what conduct is at issue, what legal 10 || duty was violated, or how the alleged conduct gives rise to a cognizable federal claim. See 11 Therefore, having thoroughly reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court concludes that 12 || Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 13 Il. CONCLUSION 14 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 15 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. ECF No. 1. 16 2. The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon 17 which relief can be granted. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an 18 amended complaint on or before June 26, 2026. 19 3. Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is DENIED as moot. ECF No. 3. 20 1 4. Plaintiff s motion for leave to electronically file documents is DENIED as moot. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, then Plaintiff may also then file 22 a renewed motion for leave to electronically file documents. 23 ||Dated: May 26, 2026 24 25 26 “7 Gar. Cb fe Co 27 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 28 United States District Judge