(PS) Bautista v. International Movie Data Base et al, No. 2:2019cv00123 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 03/07/19 RECOMMENDING that 2 Motion to Proceed IFP be granted and that the 1 Complaint be dismissed with prejudice with no leave to amend. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections due within 21 days. (Benson, A.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Bautista v. International Movie Data Base et al Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRE BAUTISTA, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:19-cv-00123 TLN AC (PS) Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INTERNATIONAL MOVIE DATA BASE and AMAZON, INC., Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 19 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 20 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required by that 21 statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). ECF No. 2. The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be 22 GRANTED. 23 24 I. SCREENING The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 25 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 27 Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the complaint is frivolous, by drafting 28 the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules- 2 policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. Under the Federal Rules 3 of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for 4 federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), 5 (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the 6 plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 7 Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms 8 are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. They are 9 available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or 10 online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 11 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 12 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 13 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 14 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 15 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 16 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 17 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 18 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 19 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 20 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 21 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 22 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 23 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 24 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 25 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 26 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 27 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 28 //// 2 1 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 2 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 3 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 4 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 5 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 6 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. 7 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 8 A. The Complaint 9 Plaintiff brings suit against Amazon, Inc. and International Movie Database (“IMDb”) for 10 “damages to the reputation (libel per se)” seeking damages of $1,000,000.00. ECF No. 1 at 5. 11 Plaintiff asserts that defendants published on the IMDb website that he committed a murder, but 12 that plaintiff is still challenging the conviction in his criminal case and never pled guilty to the 13 charges. Id. Plaintiff states he is a citizen of the State of California. ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff 14 states that IMDb is incorporated under the laws of the State of Washington and has its principal 15 place of business in the State of California and online. Id. 16 B. Analysis 17 Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and whether jurisdiction exists is a question that 18 must be answered before a case can move forward. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. 19 State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). “Federal courts are presumed to 20 lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 21 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 22 546 (1986)). 23 Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time during the 24 proceedings. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 25 1996). A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] has 26 subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). It is the 27 obligation of the district court “to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.” Grupo Dataflux v. 28 Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004). Without jurisdiction, the district court 3 1 cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief. See Morongo, 858 F.2d at 1380. 2 The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon plaintiff as the party asserting 3 jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Here, plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the court has 4 subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and plaintiff brings only 5 state claims. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 1.) The diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 6 provides that district courts have diversity jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in 7 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and the action 8 is between: “(1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a 9 foreign state; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are 10 additional parties; and (4) a foreign state...as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different 11 States.” “Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties-each defendant 12 must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative 13 Litigation, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). 14 Plaintiff’s complaint states that he is a citizen of California, and that defendant IMDb 15 maintains its principal place of business in California. ECF No. 1 at 3. A corporation is “a 16 citizen of any State in which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal 17 place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The allegations of the complaint thus establish that 18 plaintiff and defendant IMDb are citizens of the same state. Accordingly, the complaint fails to 19 establish this court’s jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To the contrary, 20 the allegations of the complaint defeat diversity. Accordingly, there is no federal jurisdiction and 21 this case must be dismissed. The undersigned further recommends that leave to amend not 22 granted in this instance because the facts alleged establish that there is no federal jurisdiction, and 23 therefore the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Noll, 809 F.2d at 1448. 24 II. CONCLUSION 25 Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma 26 pauperis (ECF No. 2) be GRANTED but that the complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED with 27 prejudice because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It is further 28 recommended that leave to amend not be granted because amendment would be futile. 4 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty one days 3 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 4 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a document 5 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure 6 to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 7 order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 8 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 DATED: March 7, 2019 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.
