(PS) Iegorova v. Brown, No. 2:2019cv00038 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/9/19 STAYING all pleading, discovery, and motion practice in this action pending resolution of the findings and recommendations and RECOMMENDING that the action be Dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the substantiality doctrine; that 2 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis be Denied as moot; and that the clerk be directed to close this case. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 day after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Coll, A)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LIUDMYLA IEGOROVA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 JERRY BROWN, No. 2:19-cv-0038-JAM-KJN PS ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Liudmyla Iegorova, proceeding without counsel, commenced this action and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) A federal court has an independent duty to assess whether federal subject matter 21 jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. 22 Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had a duty 23 to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties 24 raised the issue or not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). 25 The court must sua sponte dismiss the case if, at any time, it determines that it lacks subject 26 matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 27 “Under the substantiality doctrine, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when 28 the question presented is too insubstantial to consider.” Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d 1 1 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-39 (1974)). “The claim 2 must be ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court or otherwise 3 completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the 4 District Court, whatever may be the ultimate resolution of the federal issues on the merits.’” Id. 5 (quoting Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974)); see also Apple v. 6 Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (“a district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a 7 complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of 8 Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, 9 unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.”). 10 Plaintiff’s complaint here alleges that defendant Jerry Brown, the former governor of 11 California, committed crimes against plaintiff’s health, life, and personal property under 18 12 U.S.C. § 371. According to plaintiff, Mr. Brown failed to pay her in-home support services since 13 2015, and also stole her personal property in 2003, 2008, 2009, and 2018, all in violation of 14 federal law, California law, and various United Nations conventions. Plaintiff further suggests 15 that defendant committed the crimes to receive cash income in Great Britain since 1971. Plaintiff 16 demands nine trillion dollars in damages. (See generally ECF No. 1.) 17 As an initial matter, plaintiff, as a private citizen, has no standing to prosecute any alleged 18 crimes. Moreover, even if plaintiff’s claims could be construed as civil claims, the court finds 19 that plaintiff’s allegations are implausible, frivolous, devoid of merit, and unsubstantial. 20 Therefore, the court concludes that this action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter 21 jurisdiction pursuant to the substantiality doctrine. 22 Although the court, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable 23 case law, ordinarily liberally grants leave to amend, especially to pro se litigants, the nature of 24 plaintiff’s complaint here strongly suggests that granting leave to amend would be futile. See 25 Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). Moreover, the court notes that 26 plaintiff has already filed numerous frivolous actions in this district, including against former 27 president Obama, Target Corporation, Chase Bank, the Intercontinental Hotel Group, President 28 Trump, the Social Security Administration, the State Department, the Department of Housing and 2 1 Urban Development, and various apartment complexes. Such prior frivolous actions further 2 counsel against granting leave to amend. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. The action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the 5 substantiality doctrine. 6 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied as moot. 7 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 8 In light of those recommendations, IT IS ALSO ORDERED that all pleading, discovery, 9 and motion practice in this action are STAYED pending resolution of the findings and 10 recommendations. With the exception of objections to the findings and recommendations, and 11 non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any motions 12 or filings until the findings and recommendations are resolved. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 15 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 16 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 17 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 18 shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 19 objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 20 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 21 Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. Dated: January 9, 2019 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.