(PS) Lewis v. Federal Reserve Bank District Cities District 3 and 12 et al, No. 2:2019cv00241 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/21/2019 RECOMMENDING that the action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's 2 motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied without prejudice as moot. The Clerk of Court be ordered to close this case. Motion referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 EMPLOYEES’ SECURITIES COMPANY STANLEY HOWARD ENFRANCHISE INC., 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff, No. 2:19-cv-0241-MCE-KJN PS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK DISTRICT CITIES DISTRICT 3 AND 12; SUBSIDIARY NORTH NATOMAS FINANCIAL PUBLIC REVENUE CENTER AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION BANK OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. 20 21 Plaintiff Yolanda Lewis, an individual who is not a licensed attorney, commenced this 22 action purportedly as an “attorney in fact” on behalf of plaintiff Employees’ Securities Company 23 Stanley Howard Enfranchise Inc. (ECF No. 1.) She styles her complaint as asserting claims “in 24 law and equity prescribed by the Lord,” and the complaint contains vague and bizarre allegations 25 that defendants (largely Bank of America) engaged in a criminal Ponzi scheme and subjected 26 plaintiff to debt peonage, sex trafficking, identity theft, and theft of intellectual property. 27 28 As an initial matter, Ms. Lewis, who is not an attorney, cannot bring this action in federal court on behalf of a corporate entity. See Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 1 1 202 (1993) (holding that corporations, partnerships, or associations may not appear in federal 2 court otherwise than through a licensed attorney). However, even setting aside that procedural 3 irregularity, the court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action under the 4 substantiality doctrine. 5 A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only those cases 6 authorized by the Constitution and federal statute. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 7 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A district court has a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction 8 independent of whether the parties raise the issue or not. See United Inv'rs Life Ins. Co. v. 9 Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966–67 (9th Cir. 2004). The court must sua sponte dismiss 10 the case if, at any time, it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 12(h)(3). 12 “Under the substantiality doctrine, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when 13 the question presented is too insubstantial to consider.” Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d 14 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-39 (1974)). “The claim 15 must be ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court or otherwise 16 completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the 17 District Court, whatever may be the ultimate resolution of the federal issues on the merits.’” Id. 18 (quoting Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974)); see also Apple v. 19 Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (“a district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a 20 complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of 21 Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, 22 unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.”). 23 Here, the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint, as outlined above, are plainly frivolous, 24 implausible, and insubstantial. Therefore, the court recommends that the case be dismissed for 25 lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the substantiality doctrine. Although the court ordinarily 26 liberally grants a pro se litigant leave to amend her complaint to correct pleading deficiencies, the 27 nature of the allegations here suggests that leave to amend would be futile. See Cahill v. Liberty 28 Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. The action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 3 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied without 4 prejudice as moot. 5 3. The Clerk of Court be ordered to close this case. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 8 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 11 shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 12 objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 13 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 14 Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. Dated: February 21, 2019 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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.
