(PS) Robertson v. Supreme Court "Partner", No. 2:2014cv01685 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/20/2014 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and RECOMMENDING that 1 Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim and as frivolous. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Donati, J)

Download PDF
(PS) Robertson v. Supreme Court "Partner" Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHARRON EVON ROBERTSON, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-1685-KJM-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUPREME COURT “PARTNER”, Defendant. 16 17 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the 18 undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff seeks 19 leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Her declaration makes the 20 showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 2. Accordingly, the request to 21 proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required 23 inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the 24 allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 25 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 26 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 27 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 28 fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 2 (1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 3 his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 4 a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 5 relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are 6 true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 7 legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 8 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 9 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations 10 of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), 11 construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the 12 plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy 13 the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) 14 “requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 15 is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds 16 upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing 17 Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 18 Additionally, a federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only 19 those cases authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 20 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, 21 confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction 22 requires that the complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a 23 “case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be 24 authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal 25 jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity 26 jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the 27 matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World 28 Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction 2 1 of the federal courts unless demonstrated otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of 2 subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys 3 Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). 4 Plaintiff makes the request in her complaint that the court and the Federal Bureau of 5 Investigation act on her behalf as a mediator in dissolving a partnership between plaintiff and 6 “Supreme Court Partnership, J.F.K. Jr [sic] . . . and New York City, ‘George Magazine.’” ECF 7 No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff alleges that “[m]onies allotted to [plaintiff] were discontinued and given to 8 Mr. Kennedy and other affiliations.” The complaint also alleges that defendant obtained contracts 9 by using personal records, which are allegedly contained in United States Supreme Court files. 10 The civil cover sheet submitted with the complaint describes plaintiff’s cause of action as 11 “Breach of U.S. Supreme Court contract between said Partners. Public domain created new 12 contract w/o ‘court’ approval.” ECF No. 1-1. These vague, conclusory, and fanciful allegations 13 are largely incomprehensible and fail to state a claim for relief. Furthermore, the allegations are 14 plainly frivolous under 1915(e)(2) because they lack even “an arguable basis either in law or in 15 fact,” and appear “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 16 328 (1989). 17 For these reasons the complaint must be dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez v. 18 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are 19 only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not 20 required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”); see also Doe v. United 21 States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if 22 no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not be 23 cured by the allegation of other facts.”). 24 25 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 26 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 27 1. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915(e)(2), for failure to state a claim and as frivolous; and 3 1 2. The Clerk be directed to close the case. 2 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 3 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 4 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 5 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 6 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 7 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 8 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 DATED: November 20, 2014. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.