Gomez v. Los Angeles Department of Justice et al, No. 1:2016cv00208 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 . ORDER DISMISSING Plaintiff's Complaint with 30 Days Leave to Amend. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with Federa l Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and for failure to state a cognizable claim. Within 30 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint; and if Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action will be recommended for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/15/2016. (Timken, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 AMANDA C. GOMEZ, 14 15 Case No. 1:16-cv-00208-LJO-SKO Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. 16 17 18 19 20 LOS ANGELES DEP'T OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SACRAMENTO Defendants. (Doc. 2) ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH 30 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND _____________________________________/ 21 22 23 24 I. INTRODUCTION On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against the Los 25 Angeles Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Sacramento (collectively 26 "Defendants"). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). For 27 the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's 28 complaint is dismissed without prejudice and with 30 days leave to amend. 1 2 II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS While unclear, it appears Plaintiff reported to Defendants that her husband was "gang 3 stalking" her, but defendants responded that this was hard to prove. Plaintiff believed her phone 4 "line was crossed or as the police department stated it could be a cloned phone line [and she] 5 needed to change the # or contact a higher agency after being hurt by a guy[']s girlfriend." (Doc. 6 1, p. 6.) That is the extent of Plaintiff's allegations. 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 A. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED 9 Along with her complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed without prepayment of the 10 filing fee. Plaintiff's motion demonstrates entitlement to proceed without prepayment of fees and 11 is therefore GRANTED. (Doc. 2.) 12 B. Plaintiff's Complaint is Dismissed Without Prejudice 13 1. 14 In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen Screening Standard 15 each case, and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of 16 poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 17 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 18 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a 19 claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be 20 cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 21 In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading 22 standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must 23 contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed 25 factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 26 accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 27 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 28 true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 2 1 557). “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that is ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . 2 ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting 3 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations 4 contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Id. 5 "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 6 statements, do not suffice." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Allegations of a pro se 7 complainant are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines 8 v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 9 10 2. Plaintiff Fails to State a Cognizable Claim Plaintiff's complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to 11 state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend her claims 12 to the extent she can do so in good faith. To assist Plaintiff, the Court provides the relevant 13 pleading standards below. 14 15 a. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain "a short and plain 16 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed 17 factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 18 supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Plaintiff must 19 set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 20 face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are 21 accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57. 22 Plaintiff's complaint lacks important factual details regarding what happened and who was 23 involved. Absent this basic factual information, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff 24 states a cognizable claim. Plaintiff's complaint also fails to provide any information regarding the 25 nature of her claims or the underlying causes of action. In other words, the Court cannot ascertain 26 what legal claims Plaintiff is attempting to assert against which defendants or even how the 27 defendants are involved in this action. 28 3 1 2 b. Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 While it is unclear the basis of Plaintiff's complaint, to the extent she is attempting to set 3 forth a civil rights claim, the Civil Rights Act provides as follows: 4 5 6 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 7 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statue plainly requires there be an actual nexus or link between the actions 8 of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See Monell v. 9 Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). 10 11 12 A person 'subjects' another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made. 13 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 14 Plaintiff fails to specifically link any defendant in this action to her claims. If Plaintiff 15 elects to amend her complaint, she must allege what each defendant did or did not do that resulted 16 in the violation of her constitutional rights. 17 18 c. Federal Agencies Are Not Amenable To Suit "The United States, including its agencies and employees, can be sued only to the extent 19 that it has expressly waived its sovereign immunity." Kaiser v. Blue Cross of Cal., 347 F.3d 1107, 20 1117 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976)). "[A]ny lawsuit 21 against an agency of the United States or against an officer of the United States in his or her 22 official capacity is considered an action against the United States." Balser v. Dep't of Justice, 23 Office of the U.S. Tr., 327 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Sierra Club v. Whitman, 268 F.3d 24 898, 901 (9th Cir. 2001)). "[S]uits against officials of the United States . . . in their official 25 capacity are barred if there has been no waiver" of sovereign immunity. Sierra Club, 268 F.3d at 26 901. Absent a waiver of sovereign immunity, courts have no subject matter jurisdiction over cases 27 against the government. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212, 580 (1983). "A waiver of 28 the Federal Government's sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text . . 4 1 . and will not be implied." Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996). Waiver of sovereign 2 immunity is to be strictly construed in favor of the sovereign. Id.; United States v. Nordic Village, 3 Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33–34 (1992). 4 Plaintiff names the "Los Angeles Department of Justice" and the "Federal Bureau of 5 Investigation, Sacramento." Although it is not clear whether Plaintiff is referring to the California 6 Department of Justice or the U.S. Department of Justice, federal agencies are not generally 7 amenable to suit, and the court lacks jurisdiction over suits against a federal agency absent express 8 statutory authorization. Gerritsen v. Consulado General De Mexico, 989 F.2d 340, 343 (9th Cir. 9 1993). 10 3. 11 Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cognizable claim against Defendants. It is not clear Plaintiff May File an Amended Complaint 12 what harm Defendants caused Plaintiff or how Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the law. The 13 named Defendants are not generally amenable to suit, and if there is no applicable statutory basis 14 to sue these federal agencies, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the complaint. However, "[r]ule 15 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend 'shall be freely given when justice so requires.'" 16 AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 17 former version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, she shall be given an 18 opportunity to amend her claims to cure the identified deficiencies to the extent she can do so in 19 good faith. 20 Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See 21 Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The amended 22 complaint must be "complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading." Rule 23 220 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Once 24 Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the 25 case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the 26 involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Plaintiff may not change the nature of 27 this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in her amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 28 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or fails to cure the 5 1 deficiencies identified above, the Court will recommend that the complaint be dismissed with 2 prejudice and without leave to amend. 3 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 4 For the reasons set forth above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. 6 Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and for failure to state a cognizable claim; 7 2. 8 Within 30 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint; and 9 3. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 10 action will be recommended for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which 11 relief can be granted. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: March 15, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
