(PS) Helms v. City of Sacramento, No. 2:2015cv00786 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/20/2015 RECOMMENDING 2 that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied; Plaintiff's 1 Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend; this action be dismissed; Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PHYLLIS Z. HELMS, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-0786 MCE DAD PS Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Phyllis Helms is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the 18 undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has 19 requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff’s answers to 20 her in forma pauperis application, however, are unresponsive. For example, when asked on the 21 application to state her gross pay or wages, plaintiff wrote merely “sole heiress the house of 22 Windsor.” (Dkt. No. 2.) 23 Moreover, “‘[a] district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if 24 it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” 25 Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank 26 & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)). See also Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th 27 Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in 28 forma pauperis to determine whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the 1 1 proceeding is without merit, the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in 2 forma pauperis.”). 3 The court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of poverty is 4 found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 5 claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. See 6 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or 7 in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 8 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a complaint as frivolous 9 where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are 10 11 clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to 12 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 13 570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as 14 true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most 15 favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. 16 Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 17 (9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by 18 lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true 19 conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western 20 Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). 21 22 23 24 25 The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows: 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. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). 26 Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a 27 complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and must allege facts that 28 state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v. 2 1 Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “A pleading that offers ‘labels 2 and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.’ Nor 3 does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual 4 enhancements.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 5 557. A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the 6 defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649. 7 Moreover, jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry that must precede the adjudication of any 8 case before the district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of 9 Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal courts are courts of limited 10 jurisdiction and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. 11 Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37 12 (1992). “Federal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary appears 13 affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting 14 Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 (1986)). 15 Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time during the 16 proceedings. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 17 1996). A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] has 18 subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). It is the 19 obligation of the district court “to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.” Grupo Dataflux v. 20 Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004). Without jurisdiction, the district court 21 cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief. See Morongo, 858 F.2d at 1380. 22 The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon plaintiff as the party asserting 23 jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; see also Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 543 (1974) 24 (acknowledging that a claim may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if it is “so insubstantial, 25 implausible, . . . or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy 26 within the jurisdiction of the District Court”); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946) 27 (recognizing that a claim is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction where it is “wholly 28 insubstantial and frivolous” and so patently without merit as to justify dismissal for lack of 3 1 jurisdiction ); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that even 2 “[a] paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction 3 . . . and may be dismissed sua sponte before service of process.”). Here, plaintiff’s complaint fails to contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon 4 5 which the court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of a claim showing that she is 6 entitled to relief or a demand for judgment for the relief she seeks. Rather, plaintiff’s complaint 7 alleges that she is “the biological granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain,” that she 8 has “more children than any other mother in the world,” and that she was “given the divine 9 revelation of the very first car that transforms into a second vehicle off of another vehicle and . . . 10 of the very first car that transforms into a car that has wings, meaning the cars in the future will 11 fly.” (Compl. (Dkt. No. 1) at 1-3.) Plaintiff’s complaint does not, however, state a cause of 12 action nor does it contain a claim for relief. 13 For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s complaint should therefore be dismissed. 14 LEAVE TO AMEND 15 The undersigned has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend her pleading to 16 state a meritorious claim over which the court would have subject matter jurisdiction. “Valid 17 reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” 18 California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988). 19 See also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th 20 Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to 21 allow futile amendments). In light of the deficiencies noted above, and the nature of plaintiff’s 22 allegations, the undersigned finds that it would be futile to grant plaintiff leave to amend in this 23 case. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. Plaintiff’s April 10, 2015 application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) 25 26 be denied; 2. Plaintiff’s April 10, 2015 complaint (Dkt. No. 1) be dismissed without leave to 27 28 amend; and 4 1 2 3. This action be dismissed. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 3 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 4 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 5 objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to 6 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 7 objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal 8 the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 Dated: July 20, 2015 10 11 12 13 14 DAD:6 Ddad1\orders.pro se\helms0786.ifp.den.f&rs.docx 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.
