Williams v. Dyer et al, No. 1:2009cv01435 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 4 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Be DISMISSED Without Leave to Amend for Failure to State Grounds for Jurisdiction in this Court, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 11/17/2009. Referred to Judge Wanger. Objections to F&R due by 12/21/2009. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Dyer et al Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 LAWRENCE DEE WILLIAMS, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 16 FRESNO POLICE CHIEF JERRY DYER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-cv-01435-OWW-SMS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A BASIS FOR JURISDICTION IN THIS COURT (Doc. 4) 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner who is proceeding pro se and 18 in forma pauperis with an action for damages and other relief 19 concerning alleged civil rights violations. The matter has been 20 referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) 21 and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304. Pending before the Court is 22 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on September 22, 2009. 23 I. Screening the Complaint 24 The Court must screen complaints brought by prisoners 25 seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer. 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion 27 thereof if the Court determines that an allegation of poverty is 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 untrue or that the action is 1) frivolous or malicious, 2) fails 2 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 3) seeks 3 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 4 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2). 5 “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all 6 civil actions, with limited exceptions,” none of which applies to 7 section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 8 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a 9 complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 10 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” 11 Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant 12 fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon 13 which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. Detailed factual 14 allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 15 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 16 statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 17 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 18 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth 19 “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 20 that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 21 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are 22 accepted as true, legal conclusion are not. Id. at 1949. 23 Fed. R. If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a 24 claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the 25 deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. 26 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Dismissal 27 of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only 28 where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail on the 2 1 facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend would 2 be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128. 3 II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 4 It is Plaintiff’s burden to allege a short and plain 5 statement of the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction unless the 6 Court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new 7 jurisdictional support. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1); McNutt v. Gen. 8 Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936). Local 9 Rule 8-204 provides: 10 11 12 13 When an affirmative allegation of jurisdiction is required pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), it (i) shall appear as the first allegation of any complaint, petition, counterclaim, cross-claim or third party claim; (ii) shall be styled “Jurisdiction,” (iii) shall state the claimed statutory or other basis of federal jurisdiction, and (iv) shall state the facts supporting such jurisdictional claim. 14 III. Plaintiff’s Complaint 15 Here, Plaintiff alleges that he was defamed by the 16 Defendants (the Chief of Police and the Mayor of Fresno), who 17 stated that he had committed previous crimes (double murder and a 18 Merced home invasion rape), and that thereafter Plaintiff was 19 assaulted by inmates in Plaintiff’s place of confinement. 20 Defamation is a state tort claim. 21 Plaintiff fails to state any basis for subject matter 22 jurisdiction in this Court. Plaintiff does not appear to be 23 asserting any right arising under federal statute, treaty, or the 24 Constitution that would confer jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1331. 26 Further, Plaintiff, who is an inmate in California, does not 27 include any allegations regarding the citizenship of Defendant or 28 3 1 of Plaintiff; however, because of the positions of the named 2 defendants, it is not likely that the named defendants are 3 citizens of a state other than California. Hence, it does not 4 appear that there would be subject matter jurisdiction based on 5 the citizenship of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 6 7 8 Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a basis for jurisdiction in this Court. Plaintiff has already been informed of the requirement of 9 stating grounds for jurisdiction, and Plaintiff has been given an 10 opportunity to file a first amended complaint. However, Plaintiff 11 has not cured the defect in his complaint. 12 13 It appears that affording Plaintiff a further opportunity to state a jurisdictional basis would be futile. 14 IV. Recommendation 15 Accordingly, it IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s second 16 amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for failure 17 to state grounds for jurisdiction in this Court. 18 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United 19 States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the 20 provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the 21 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 22 Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after 23 being served with a copy, any party may file written objections 24 with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 25 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 26 and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served 27 and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served 28 by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then 4 1 review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 2 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 3 objections within the specified time may waive the right to 4 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 5 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: icido3 November 17, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
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.
