(PS) Iegorova v. Sereda, No. 2:2019cv01514 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER STAYING CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/2/2019 RECOMMENDING that the action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, that 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied as moot, and ORDERING that that all pleading, discovery, and motion practice are STAYED pending resolution of the findings and recommendations. With the exception of objections to the findings and recommendations and any non-frivolous motions for eme rgency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any motions and other filings until the findings and recommendations are resolved. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Huang, H)

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 14 15 v. No. 2:19-cv-1514-KJM-KJN PS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, ORDER STAYING CASE VALENTIN SEREDA, Defendant. 16 17 18 19 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 20 jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. 21 Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had a duty 22 to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties 23 raised the issue or not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). 24 The court must sua sponte dismiss the case if, at any time, it determines that it lacks subject 25 matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 26 “Under the substantiality doctrine, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when 27 the question presented is too insubstantial to consider.” Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d 28 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-39 (1974)). “The claim 1 1 must be ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court or otherwise 2 completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the 3 District Court, whatever may be the ultimate resolution of the federal issues on the merits.’” Id. 4 (quoting Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974)); see also Apple v. 5 Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (“a district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a 6 complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of 7 Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, 8 unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.”). 9 Plaintiff’s complaint here alleges that defendant Valentin Sereda, an employee with the 10 California Department of Human Services, committed crimes against plaintiff’s life, health, and 11 private property under 18 U.S.C. § 241. According to plaintiff, defendant “ignored letters and 12 verbal requests” to file hearing documents from In–Home Support Services administrative 13 hearing between February and July 2017. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff demands ninety-nine trillion 14 dollars in damages. (Id.) 15 As an initial matter, plaintiff, as a private citizen, has no standing to prosecute any alleged 16 crimes. Moreover, even if plaintiff’s claims could be construed as civil claims, the court finds 17 that plaintiff’s allegations are implausible, frivolous, devoid of merit, and unsubstantial. 18 Therefore, the court concludes that this action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter 19 jurisdiction pursuant to the substantiality doctrine. 20 Although the court, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable 21 case law, ordinarily liberally grants leave to amend, especially to pro se litigants, the nature of 22 plaintiff’s complaint here strongly suggests that granting leave to amend would be futile. See 23 Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). Moreover, the court notes that 24 plaintiff has already filed numerous frivolous actions in this district, including against former 25 president Obama, Target Corporation, Chase Bank, the Intercontinental Hotel Group, President 26 Trump, the Social Security Administration, the State Department, the Department of Housing and 27 Urban Development, and various apartment complexes. Such prior frivolous actions further 28 counsel against granting leave to amend. 2 1 2 3 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. The action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the substantiality doctrine; and 5 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied as moot. 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 In light of those recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading, 16 discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of the findings and 17 recommendations. With the exception of objections to the findings and recommendations and 18 any non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any 19 motions and other filings until the findings and recommendations are resolved. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. Dated: October 2, 2019 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.