(PS) Williams v. Monument Security, No. 2:2012cv02164 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/09/12 RECOMMENDING that Plaintiff's 8/20/12 Application to proceed in forma pauperis 2 be denied. Plaintiff's 8/20/12 Complaint 1 be dismissed without leave to amend. And This Action be closed. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to these F&R are due within fourteen (14) days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Williams v. Monument Security Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LEON WILLIAMS, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, vs. MONUMENT SECURITY, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. 15 16 No. 2:12-cv-2164 KJM DAD PS / Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on August 20, 2012, by filing 17 a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. Nos. 18 1 & 2.) This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) 19 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis 22 status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny leave to 23 proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that 24 the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th 25 Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)). See 26 also Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District Court to 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine whether the 2 proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is 3 bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). Moreover, the court must 4 dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of poverty is found to be untrue or 5 if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief 6 may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 7 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. 8 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 9 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a complaint as frivolous where it is 10 based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly 11 baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 12 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough 13 facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 14 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court 15 accepts as true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light 16 most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. 17 Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 18 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by 19 lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as 20 true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western 21 Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). 22 The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows: 23 A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. 24 25 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 2 1 Here, plaintiff’s complaint is deficient in two respects. First, it does not contain a 2 short and plain statement of the grounds upon which this court’s jurisdiction depends. 3 Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry that must precede the adjudication of any case before the 4 district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 5 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may adjudicate 6 only those cases authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 7 377 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37 (1992).1 “Federal courts are presumed 8 to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 9 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 10 534, 546 (1986)). 11 Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time during 12 the proceedings. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th 13 Cir. 1996). A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] 14 has subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). It 15 is the obligation of the district court “to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.” Grupo Dataflux 16 v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004). Without jurisdiction, the district court 17 cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief. See Morongo, 858 F.2d at 1380. 18 The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon plaintiff as the party asserting 19 jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; see also Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 543 (1974) 20 (acknowledging that a claim may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if it is “so insubstantial, 21 implausible, . . . or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy 22 within the jurisdiction of the District Court”); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946) 23 (recognizing that a claim is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction where it is “wholly 24 25 26 1 Congress has conferred jurisdiction upon the federal district courts as limited by the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2; 28 U.S.C. § 132; see also Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 697-99 (1992). 3 1 insubstantial and frivolous” and so patently without merit as to justify dismissal for lack of 2 jurisdiction ); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that even 3 “[a] paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer federal subject matter 4 jurisdiction . . . and may be dismissed sua sponte before service of process.”). 5 The basic federal jurisdiction statutes are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, which 6 confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal jurisdiction may also 7 be conferred by federal statutes regulating specific subject matter. District courts have “original 8 jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 9 States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “Most federal-question jurisdiction cases are those in which federal 10 law creates a cause of action. A case may also arise under federal law where ‘it appears that 11 some substantial, disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of one of the well- 12 pleaded state claims.’” Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Franchise 13 Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983)). The 14 “well-pleaded complaint rule” provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal 15 question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. California v. 16 United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). 17 “‘Arising under’ federal jurisdiction only arises . . . when the federal law does 18 more than just shape a court’s interpretation of state law; the federal law must be at issue.” Int’l 19 Union of Operating Eng’rs v. County of Plumas, 559 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere 20 presence of a federal issue does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction, and 21 passing references to federal statutes do not create a substantial federal question. Lippitt v. 22 Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc., 340 F.3d 1033, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2003); Rains v. Criterion 23 Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 344 (9th Cir. 1996). “When a claim can be supported by alternative and 24 independent theories – one of which is a state law theory and one of which is a federal law theory 25 – federal question jurisdiction does not attach because federal law is not a necessary element of 26 the claim.” Rains, 80 F.3d at 346. See also Lippitt, 340 F.3d at 1043. Here, plaintiff’s 4 1 complaint does not contain any statement of the grounds upon which this court’s jurisdiction 2 depends. Rather, as explained further below, plaintiff’s complaint merely sets forth allegations 3 of alleged wrong doing against him by a private security guard. 4 Second, plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of his 5 claim showing that he is entitled to relief. In his complaint plaintiff alleges as follows. On June 6 23, 2012, plaintiff had an argument with a security guard employed by defendant at a motel 7 plaintiff was visiting. (Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at 1.) After exchanging shouts and foul language, 8 the security guard threatened to report to the police that plaintiff had attempted to kidnap a girl. 9 (Id.) After plaintiff left the scene of the argument he received a phone call from a friend who 10 was staying at the motel stating that the security guard was claiming plaintiff had attempted to 11 kidnap the friend’s sister. (Id.) In his complaint plaintiff alleges in conclusory fashion that 12 defendant’s “slander” violated “federal and constitutional laws.” (Id. at 1-2.) 13 Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a 14 complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and must allege facts that 15 state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v. 16 Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “A pleading that offers ‘labels 17 and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.’ Nor 18 does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual 19 enhancements.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 20 555, 557). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the 21 defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649. 22 Moreover, a litigant who complains of a violation of a constitutional right does 23 not have a cause of action directly under the United States Constitution. Livadas v. Bradshaw, 24 512 U.S. 107, 132 (1994) (affirming that it is 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that provides a federal cause of 25 action for the deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution); Chapman v. 26 Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 617 (1979) (explaining that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was 5 1 enacted to create a private cause of action for violations of the United States Constitution); Azul- 2 Pacifico, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 973 F.2d 704, 705 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Plaintiff has no cause 3 of action directly under the United States Constitution.”). 4 Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that, 5 [e]very 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 and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 6 7 8 The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the 9 defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Dep’t of 10 Soc. Servs. City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A 11 person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 12 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform 13 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” 14 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 15 Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their 16 employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a 17 supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must 18 be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. 19 Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the 20 involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board 21 of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 22 In order to state a cognizable claim under § 1983 the plaintiff must allege facts 23 demonstrating that he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United 24 States and that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West 25 v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). It is the plaintiff’s burden in bringing a claim under § 1983 to 26 allege, and ultimately establish, that the named defendants were acting under color of state law 6 1 when they deprived him of a federal right. Lee v. Katz, 276 F.3d 550, 553-54 (9th Cir. 2002). 2 Here, the complaint specifically alleges that defendant Monument Security “isn’t 3 a government entity.” (Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at 1.) Thus, the allegations of the complaint fail to 4 demonstrate that plaintiff was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the 5 United States and that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. 6 7 Accordingly, for all of the reasons cited above, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 8 9 The undersigned has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend his pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. “Valid reasons for denying leave to 10 amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. 11 Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988). See also Klamath-Lake 12 Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that 13 while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments). 14 In light of the obvious deficiencies of the complaint filed by plaintiff in this action as noted 15 above, the court finds that it would be futile to grant plaintiff leave to amend in this instance. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 17 1. Plaintiff’s August 20, 2012 application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 18 2) be denied; 19 20 2. Plaintiff’s August 20, 2012 complaint (Doc. No. 1) be dismissed without leave to amend; and 21 3. This action be closed. 22 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 23 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 24 fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 25 written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections 26 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 7 1 objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal 2 the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 DATED: November 9, 2012. 4 5 6 7 8 DDAD:6 Ddad1\orders.pro se\williams2164.ifpden.f&rs.wpd 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 8
]]>
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.
