Phillip Bonnette et al vs Dick, et al, No. 1:2018cv00046 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: SCREENING ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Leave to File an Amended Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 04/04/2019. Amended Complaint due by 5/8/2019.(Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Phillip Bonnette et al vs Dick, et al Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PHILLIP BONNETTE and LINDA FAYE GRANT-JONES, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 Case No. 1:18-cv-0046-DAD-BAM SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT LELAND ROSS DICK, et al, 15 (Doc. No. 1) Defendants. 16 THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 17 18 19 Plaintiffs Phillip Bonnette and Linda Faye Grant-Jones (“Plaintiffs”) are proceeding pro se 20 and in forma pauperis in this action against Defendants Leland Ross Dick, Michael Herbert 21 Crowley, Ronald James Works, the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department, Margaret Mims, Kevin 22 Lolkus, Daniel Epperly, Sean Quinn, Sergeant Hansen, and John Epickson. 23 Plaintiffs’ complaint, filed on January 11, 2018, is currently before the Court for screening.1 (Doc. No. 1.) 24 25 26 27 28 1 On February 5, 2019, before the Court had an opportunity to screen the complaint, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to amend. (Doc. No. 9.) The Court denied the motion as moot on the grounds that Plaintiffs had not yet amended the complaint and no defendant had yet appeared or been served, and Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure therefore permitted Plaintiffs to amend their pleading once as a matter of course. (Doc. No. 12.) To date, Plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 I. 2 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma 3 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiffs’ complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 4 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 5 or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 6 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Screening Requirement and Standard 7 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 8 is entitled to relief . . ..” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 9 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 10 do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 11 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required 12 to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 13 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 14 To survive screening, Plaintiffs’ claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient 15 factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the 16 misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 17 2009). 18 consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; 19 Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere 20 I. 21 Plaintiffs’ complaint totals two hundred and seventy-three (273) pages in length, including 22 nearly thirty pages of opaque factual allegations and recitations of an assortment of legal standards, 23 accompanied by lengthy exhibits which appear to consist of various documents related to state court 24 civil and criminal proceedings between the parties, complaints filed with the Fresno County 25 Sheriff’s Office, and several photos of Plaintiffs’ property and deceased animals. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiffs’ Allegations 26 Plaintiffs’ allegations in the complaint are unclear. It is difficult to discern the precise 27 claims Plaintiffs are seeking to raise, which defendants they intend to assert those claims against, 28 and the factual allegations that support those claims. However, affording the allegations the most 2 1 liberal reading possible, Plaintiffs appear to generally allege that multiple defendants have 2 trespassed on to Plaintiffs’ real property and that various law enforcement defendants have failed 3 to assist Plaintiffs in excluding those trespassing defendants from the property. (Doc. No. 1.) 4 III. 5 Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to allege that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this 6 dispute and does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. However, as Plaintiffs are 7 proceeding pro se, they will be granted leave to amend their complaint to cure the below-identified 8 deficiencies to the extent they can do so in good faith. To assist Plaintiffs, the Court provides the 9 pleading and legal standards that appear applicable to their claims. Discussion 10 A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 11 Based on the limited information that can be discerned from the complaint, Plaintiffs have 12 not established that federal jurisdiction is proper. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction 13 and lack inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction. They can only adjudicate cases authorized 14 by the United States Constitution and Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 15 (1994). To proceed in federal court, Plaintiffs’ complaint must establish the existence of subject 16 matter jurisdiction as federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions, and 17 the burden to establish the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. at 377. Lack of 18 subject matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the court sua sponte. Attorneys 19 Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-595 (9th Cir. 1996); Demery v. 20 Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1149 n.8 (9th Cir. 1984.) Generally, there are two bases for subject 21 matter jurisdiction: 1) diversity jurisdiction; and 2) federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 22 1331, 1332. 23 1. Diversity Jurisdiction 24 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil 25 actions “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,” and where the 26 matter is between “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Here, Plaintiffs seek 27 “general damages according to proof, however, no less than the jurisdictional limit of this court[.]” 28 (Doc. No. 1.) However, the party asserting diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proof and 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 there is nothing in the complaint establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986.) Moreover, the complaint appears to indicate that all parties are citizens of California. If the parties are all California citizens, this destroys the requisite “complete diversity.” See Cook v. AVI Casino Enterprises, Inc., 548 F.3d 718, 722 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1221 (2009). Accordingly, it appears from the allegations of the complaint that the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction. 2. Federal Question Jurisdiction 8 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have jurisdiction over “all civil actions 9 arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “A case ‘arises under’ federal 10 law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the vindication of a right under 11 state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.’” Republican Party of Guam v. 12 13 Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)). The presence or absence of federal-question 14 jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 15 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Id. Here, Plaintiffs’ complaint appears to allege a California state law claim for trespass. See Allred v. Harris, 14 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1390 (1993). While Plaintiffs recite the text of multiple federal statutes in their complaint, it is not clear from the allegations whether these statutes have any application to the facts or how this action relates to any federal question. As currently pled, the complaint does not contain any allegation of a violation arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. It therefore appears from the allegations of the complaint that the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs are further advised that any amended complaint must allege facts that establish this Court’s jurisdiction. B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 26 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain 27 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed 28 4 1 factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 2 supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Plaintiffs must 3 set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 4 face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual allegations are 5 accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557. 6 Plaintiffs’ complaint is neither short nor plain. As a basic matter, the complaint lacks clear 7 factual allegations regarding the incident at issue as well as the involvement of the various 8 defendants. It is confusing, convoluted, and fails to set forth the facts in a comprehensible manner. 9 The complaint does not clearly articulate the facts giving rise to any claim and does not specifically 10 identify what harm was inflicted by each defendant. Plaintiffs are cautioned that any amended 11 complaint must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 by clearly and succinctly stating 12 what happened, when it happened, and how each defendant was involved. 13 Plaintiffs’ complaint additionally contains several lengthy exhibits. While exhibits are 14 permissible if incorporated by reference, they are not necessary in the federal system of notice 15 pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 10(c). The Court strongly suggests to Plaintiffs that they should 16 not be submitted where (1) they serve only to confuse the record and burden the Court, or (2) they 17 are intended as future evidence. If this action reaches a juncture at which the submission of 18 evidence is appropriate and necessary (e.g., summary judgment or trial), Plaintiffs will have the 19 opportunity at that time to submit their evidence. 20 Insofar as Plaintiffs reference exhibits attached to the complaint as the source of the facts 21 underlying this claim, the Court notes that these exhibits exceed 240 pages and necessarily 22 contravene Rule 8’s requirement of a short and plain statement of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs are 23 further cautioned that it is not the Court's duty to wade through lengthy and convoluted exhibits to 24 determine whether cognizable claims have been stated, and the Court declines to do so here. See 25 White v. Kennedy, 2014 WL 128143, *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2015.) 26 Plaintiffs must submit a complaint to the Court that meets the requirements of Rule 8. 27 Plaintiffs shall separate their claims so that it is clear what claims are being presented and which 28 defendant is involved in each claim. Further, for each claim, Plaintiffs shall clearly and succinctly 5 1 set forth the facts that Plaintiffs believe give rise to the claim. “Each allegation must be simple, 2 concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered 3 paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b). 4 Moreover, “each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence ... must be stated in a 5 separate count.” Id. Accordingly, the requirements of Rule 8 have not been satisfied and Plaintiffs’ 6 complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. 7 C. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine 8 Finally, it appears that Plaintiffs may be attempting to challenge actions occurring in state 9 court through the filing of this action. According to the exhibits to the complaint, there have been 10 several state court proceedings, including civil restraining orders and criminal complaints, filed 11 against some or all of the defendants as a result of the same alleged trespass upon which this action 12 may be based. (Doc. No. 1.) Although unclear, Plaintiffs appear to allege that these state court 13 proceedings were decided improperly. However, federal district courts have no authority to review 14 such proceedings of the state courts. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Company, 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 15 149 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, (1983). 16 “[L]ower federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review a case litigated and decided in state court; 17 only the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to correct state court judgments.” Gottfried 18 v. Medical Planning Services, 142 F.3d 326, 330 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1041, 119 S. Ct. 19 592 (1998); see also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 901 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Stated 20 plainly, Rooker—Feldman bars any suit that seeks to disrupt or ‘undo’ a prior state-court judgment, 21 regardless of whether the state-court proceeding afforded the federal-court plaintiff a full and fair 22 opportunity to litigate her claims.”). 23 intervention for actions occurring in state court, Plaintiffs seek relief this Court cannot provide. Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek Court 24 II. Conclusion 25 Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to assert facts establishing subject matter jurisdiction, and does 26 not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. As Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, the Court 27 will grant Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint to cure the deficiencies to the extent 28 they are able to do so in good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 6 1 Plaintiffs’ amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 2 each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights or otherwise 3 harmed Plaintiffs. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations 4 must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . ..” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 5 555 (citations omitted). 6 Additionally, Plaintiffs may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 7 claims in their first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 8 “buckshot” complaints). 9 Finally, Plaintiffs are advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 10 Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiffs’ amended 11 complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local 12 Rule 220. 13 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. 15 16 17 18 Plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed with leave to amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiffs shall file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order; and 3. If Plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, 19 this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order, failure to 20 prosecute, and failure to state a claim. 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara April 4, 2019 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
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.
