Lana Williams v. Madera Police Department et al, No. 1:2012cv01114 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 9 Plaintiff's Complaint be Dismissed Without Leave to Amend and that 10 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be Denied as Moot signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/6/2012. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fifteen (15) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lana Williams v. Madera Police Department et al Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LANA K. WILLIAMS, 8 CASE NO. 1: 12-cv-01114-LJO-BAM Plaintiff, FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 9 10 vs. 11 12 MADERA POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 13 Defendants. / 14 15 16 I. Screening Requirement Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Lana K. Williams’ (“Plaintiff”) amended complaint, 17 filed October 12, 2012. (Doc. 9.) Pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code Section 1915(e)(2), 18 the Court has reviewed the complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a 19 complaint or portion thereof if it determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails 20 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 21 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 22 Court must accept as true the well pled allegations of the complaint in question (Hospital Bldg. Co. 23 v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976)), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the 24 light most favorable to the Plaintiff (Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)), and 25 resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff's favor (Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969)). 26 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 27 is entitled to relief . . ..” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 28 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 2 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 3 factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 4 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 5 conclusion are not. Id. at 1949. 6 A pleading may not simply allege a wrong has been committed and demand relief. The 7 underlying requirement is that a pleading give “fair notice” of the claim being asserted and the 8 “grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957); Yamaguchi v. United 9 States Department of Air Force, 109 F.3d 1475, 1481 (9th Cir. 1997). 10 If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend should be 11 granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. 12 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a 13 claim is proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts that he has 14 alleged and that an opportunity to amend would be futile. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1128. 15 II. 16 Background Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint in this Court on July 10, 2012. (Doc. 1.) 17 Plaintiff brings this action against the Madera Police Department, Bank of America, City of Madera, 18 Monica M. Salters, “Mr. Salters,” Daniel Evans, Tabitha Tranchant, Nicholas Tranchant and Diane 19 Tranchant (collectively referred to as the “Defendants”). 20 This case arises out of a dispute between neighbors. Based on the Court’s understanding of 21 Plaintiff’s allegations, Plaintiff alleges her neighbors, Daniel Evans and the “Tranchant” individuals, 22 vandalized Plaintiff’s property, and the other named Defendants in some way failed to properly 23 respond to Plaintiff’s concerns. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff asserts causes of action for property damage, 24 fraud, personal injury. Id. 25 On July 26, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend pursuant to 26 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 5.) Specifically, the Court noted that 27 Plaintiff's Complaint was unintelligible, and failed to assert identifiable causes of action or make 28 coherent factual allegations that could give rise to a plausible cause of action. The Court additionally 2 1 noted that Plaintiff had failed to establish federal jurisdiction existed. Lastly, the Court noted the 2 various allegations against the Defendants bore no factual or legal relationship to one another. The 3 Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies 4 would result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims without leave to amend. (Doc. 5, 6: 8-10.) 5 Plaintiff filed her amended complaint on October 12, 2012. (Doc. 9.) Discussed in greater 6 detail below, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to provide the information required by the 7 Court’s previous Order. Because “it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts that [s]he 8 has alleged and that an opportunity to amend would be futile[,]” Plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed 9 without leave to amend. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1128. 10 III. Discussion internalize 11 A. 12 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader Plaintiff’s Complaint Fails to Comply With Rule 8 13 is entitled to relief . . ..” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A pleading may not simply allege a wrong has been 14 committed and demand relief. The underlying requirement is that a pleading give “fair notice” of the 15 claim being asserted and the “grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48, 78 16 S.Ct. 99, 103 (1957); Yamaguchi v. United States Department of AirForce, 109 F.3d 1475, 1481(9th 17 Cir. 1997). Although a complaint need not outline all elements of a claim, “[i]t must be possible ... 18 for an inference to be drawn that these elements exist.” Walker v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 19 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1990); Lewis v. ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-406 (6th 20 Cir. 1998). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt facts which 21 defendant engaged in to support plaintiff's claim. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 22 649 (9th Cir. 1984). 23 The claims in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint are unintelligible. Plaintiff’s Complaint 24 is replete with non-sequiturs bearing no clear relationship to each other. For example, the entirety of 25 Plaintiff’s fraud allegations read as follows: 26 27 28 II. 4. 5. 6. Fraud Name of Each Defendants Liability Policies. Evans Stated of Tranchant “He Told Me Not To Worry About it.” These tenants have committed a crime. Even in a graffiti vandalism there is restitution. 3 1 (Pl.’s Amend. Compl., 2: 4-9, Doc. 9.) Similarly, Plaintiff’s personal injury allegations are equally 2 unintelligible. 3 III. 7. 4 8. 5 6 7 9. 10. 11. 12. Personal Injury The personal attacks continued into November 2011. Also trespassing Daniel Evans and Tabitha Tranchant. Correction. D.N. Teller Vehicle edged only. His insurance covers above deductible. 150. Detailed 110.00. Other vehicles base ball batted windows. Tenants at 125 N.L. vacated within 24 hours of being served. U.S. Post office said tenants mail is forwarded. Post script. Arthure Gonzales - Attorney filed his police case at Eastern District. 8 9 10 (Pl.’s Amend. Compl., 2: 10-19, Doc. 9.) Nowhere does Plaintiff assert coherent factual allegations that could give rise to a valid cause 11 of action. Indeed, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint presents even fewer factual allegations than her 12 original complaint, which the Court found did not “provide ‘fair notice’ of the claims being asserted 13 and the ‘grounds upon which [they] rest.” (Doc. 5, 4: 1-6.) (Citations omitted.) 14 Generally, the Court is lenient and liberally construes pro se pleadings. However, even an 15 attenuated reading of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint does not allow the Court to divine the 16 nature of Plaintiff’s allegations, her theories for recovery, or how the various Defendants are each 17 responsible under her legal theories. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to provide 18 “fair notice” of the claims being asserted and the “grounds upon which [they] rest.” Yamaguchi, 109 19 F.3d at 1481. 20 B. 21 In order to state a claim in a United States District Court, Plaintiff must establish federal 22 jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject 23 matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases in which the United States 24 Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 25 U.S. 375, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1677 (1994). Generally, these cases involve diversity of citizenship (in 26 which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and is between citizens of 27 different states), or a federal question, or to which the United States is a party. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 28 and 1332; See also, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. Jurisdiction 4 1 2d 391 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 2008, 104 L. Ed. 2d 593 2 (1989). 3 Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions, and the burden to 4 establish the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; 114 5 S.Ct. at 1677. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the court sua 6 sponte. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-595 (9th Cir. 7 1996). “Nothing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what 8 its power rests upon. Without jurisdiction it is nothing.” In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th 9 Cir.1988). 10 In the Court’s Order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend, the Court 11 specifically noted that “Plaintiff has failed to establish that federal jurisdiction exists as the United 12 States is not a party in this action and no federal question is presented. Similarly, the complaint does 13 not allege that the parties are citizens of different states.” (Doc. 5, 4: 25-27.) Plaintiff’s First 14 Amended Complaint has failed to cure these deficiencies. The United States is not a party to this 15 action. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint does not present any federal questions, nor does it 16 identify the citizenship of the various parties. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 17 claims. 18 C. 19 Plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. Fed. R. 20 Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 21 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff may bring a claim against multiple defendants so long as (1) 22 the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences, 23 and (2) there are commons questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); Coughlin v. Rogers, 24 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997); Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America, 623 25 F.3d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). Only if the defendants are properly joined under Rule 20(a) will the 26 Court review the other claims to determine if they may be joined under Rule 18(a), which permits the 27 joinder of multiple claims against the same party. Plaintiffs will not be permitted to proceed with a 28 “mishmash of a complaint,” George, 507 F.3d at 607. Plaintiff Improperly Brings Unrelated Claims Against Unrelated Parties 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 In the Court’s Order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend, the Court specifically noted that Plaintiff’s claims against the various Defendants do not stem from the same transaction or occurrence, or otherwise present common questions of law and fact. Plaintiff’s claims against Bank of America have no legal or factual relationship to Plaintiff’s claims against the other defendants. Further, Plaintiff’s claims against the Madera defendants have no legal relation to Plaintiff’s claims against the individual defendants. Plaintiff’s “mishmash of a complaint,” as it is currently pled, can not be permitted to proceed. (Doc. 5, 5: 12-17.) Plaintiff has failed to cure these deficiencies. Not a single claim against Bank of America is 9 made in the Amended Complaint. No alleged wrongs are alleged to have been committed by the 10 Madera Police Department. Reading the Amended Complaint as a whole, it is completely unclear 11 why any individual or entity other than the two individuals alleged to have vandalized Plaintiff’s 12 property are named as Defendants in this action. Therefore, the unrelated claims and parties can not 13 be properly joined under Rules 18(a) and 20(a)(2). 14 CONCLUSION 15 For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS as follows: 16 1. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; 17 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as Moot. 18 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 19 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15) 20 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written 21 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 22 Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 23 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 24 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10c20k November 6, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
