(PS) Swami v. District Attorney, No. 2:2014cv00844 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/06/16 RECOMMENDING the 13 Amended Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and that the Clerk be directed to close the case. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Jackson, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Swami v. District Attorney Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SARAN SWAMI, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-844-TLN-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Defendant. 16 17 The court previously granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 1915, but dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(e)(2). ECF No. 12. The order noted, among other things, that although plaintiff purported 20 to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it appeared that the only named defendant is immune 21 from suit. Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed. However, plaintiff was granted leave 22 to file an amended compliant if he could allege cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant 23 and sufficient facts in support of that cognizable legal theory. 24 As noted in the court’s prior order, although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see 25 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be 26 dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief 27 that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) 28 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and 2 conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual 3 allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption 4 that all of the complaint’s allegations are true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate 5 based either on the lack of cognizable legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to 6 support cognizable legal theories. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 7 1990). 8 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations 9 of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), 10 construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the 11 plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy 12 the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) 13 “requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 14 is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds 15 upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing 16 Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 17 Additionally, a federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only 18 those cases authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 19 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, 20 confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction 21 requires that the complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a 22 “case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be 23 authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal 24 jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity 25 jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the 26 matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World 27 Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction 28 of the federal courts unless demonstrated otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of 2 1 subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys 2 Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). 3 As was the case with plaintiff’s original complaint, his first amended complaint is 4 unintelligible and the basis for his claim cannot be deciphered. He alleges that for decades he has 5 predicted and observed the public killing and prosecution of victims by the County of 6 Sacramento, that the county took control of a house he owned by suing him in state court, that 7 this somehow led to the county causing “the killings of the occupants [of the house] by a fire,” 8 and that defendant now wants to prosecute him. ECF No. 13 (emphasis omitted). 9 Plaintiff further claims that Officer Joyce Thorgrimson from the Sacramento District 10 Attorney’s Office obtained a search warrant by making false statements. Id. The only allegedly 11 false statement identified in the complaint is that “attorney Oliver does not represent plaintiffs 12 and all documents from plaintiffs should be seized.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that he is represented by 13 attorney Keith Oliver and that “Plaintiffs were [sic] running the office of attorney Keith Oliver 14 from [his] home.” Id. Plaintiff claims that on April 1, 2014, defendant allegedly came to 15 plaintiff’s house and took his computer and legal documents. Plaintiff contends this act was a 16 violation of the attorney-client privilege, litigation privilege, private attorney general privilege 17 and his right to privacy. Id. at 2. He also states that the state court ultimately found no 18 wrongdoing on his part and that therefore all seized properties should be returned immediately. 19 Id. The complaint purports to assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 for violation of 20 plaintiff’s right to be “free from unlawful search and seizure and to be free from unwarranted 21 governmental interference.” Id. at 3. 22 Plaintiff’s complaint specifically states that the “Defendant [in this action] is [the] District 23 Attorney of Sacramento.” Id. at 2. However, the complaint contains insufficient factual 24 allegations to state a section 1983 claim against this defendant. As was previously explained to 25 plaintiff, “[p]rosecutors are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for their conduct 26 insofar as it is ‘intimately associated’ with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Betello v. 27 Gammick, 413 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff once again fails to allege any facts 28 demonstrating that defendant’s conduct was not intimately associated with the judicial phase of 3 1 the criminal process. Instead, he alleges little more than his property was seized pursuant to a 2 warrant that he believes was invalid. Moreover, he does not provide any facts indicating how the 3 defendant was involved in the alleged unlawful seizure of his property. Accordingly, plaintiff’s 4 complaint fails to state a claim. 5 Despite notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend, plaintiff 6 remains unable to state a proper claim for relief. Therefore, this action should be dismissed, 7 without further leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 8 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are only required to grant 9 leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to 10 amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”); see also Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th 11 Cir. 1995) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the 12 pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not be cured by the allegation of 13 other facts.”). 14 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the amended complaint (ECF No. 13) be 15 dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and that the Clerk be 16 directed to close the case. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 19 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 20 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 21 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 22 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 23 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 24 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 25 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 26 DATED: April 6, 2016. 27 28 4
]]>
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.
