Opinion
1:22-cv-00427-JLT-EPG
04-19-2022
GABRIEL MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. JOCELYNN DEANNA MAHONEY, Defendant.
SCREENING ORDER
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO:
(1) FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;
OR
(2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE WISHES TO STAND ON HIS COMPLAINT
(ECF NO. 1)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Gabriel Martinez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action. (See ECF No. 1, 4). The complaint is now before the Court for screening.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and finds that Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable claims. Plaintiff now has the following options as to how to move forward. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint if he believes that additional facts would state a cognizable claim or claims. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the Court will screen that amended complaint in due course. Or Plaintiff may file a statement with the Court that he wants to stand on his complaint and have it reviewed by the District Judge, in which case the Court will issue findings and recommendations to the District Judge consistent with this order.
I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court screens the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 5). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a plaintiff's legal conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal).
II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff's complaint is a single page and names Joselynn Deanna Mahoney as the only Defendant. Substantively, it states as follows:
i, require: a ‘court of record'; ‘trial by jury': claim: trespass [force and arms]
i, claim;
• said wrongdoer trespass upon my property;
• the casual agent of the trespass, comes by the way of force and arms;
• the trespass did and does harm and injure my property;
• the commencement of the wrong and harm began on September 24th2021;
• the wrong and harm continues to this day, of April 12th 2022;
• i require compensation for the initial and continual trespass upon my property;
• compensation due; four-hundred and fifty thousand dollars;(ECF No, 1, p. 1). Plaintiff has also filed a civil cover sheet, selecting “Diversity” as the basis for this Court's jurisdiction. (ECF No. 2, p. 1). For nature of the suit, Plaintiff selects “Other Personal Injury.” (Id.).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The Court is unable to conclude that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases which the United States Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “In civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction is generally conferred upon federal district courts either through diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005); see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“[D]istrict courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States”); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (providing that district courts have original jurisdiction of civil actions between citizens of different States where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000).
Here, Plaintiff alleges only a state law claim for trespass and identifies the basis for jurisdiction as diversity of citizenship. While Plaintiff seeks $450,000 in damages, Plaintiff's complaint fails to offer, as it must, any facts as to his or Defendant's citizenship. See Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env t, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 (2010) (“A plaintiff suing in a federal court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court, on having the defect called to its attention or on discovering the same, must dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.”) (internal citation omitted). Thus, the Court cannot conclude whether this action is between citizens of different States as is required to establish diversity jurisdiction.
Additionally, as Plaintiff is asserting a state law claim and because the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction, the Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction either. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (“Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”). Should Plaintiff decide to file an amended complaint, he must allege facts establishing the Court's jurisdiction over this case.
B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
As noted above, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). It must also contain “sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). There are multiple ways to violate this Rule, but the most pertinent type of violation here is that the complaint “say too little.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original).
Plaintiff has failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) because the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of his claim showing that he is entitled to relief. While the complaint vaguely alleges a trespass with some accompanying dates, it does not plainly state what happened, how Defendant was involved, and how Plaintiff was harmed. Rather, Plaintiff simply states, in a conclusory fashion, that Defendant committed a trespass. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he must provide sufficient facts to understand what happened and how that states a legal claim.
C. Legal Standards
In the event Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, the Court provides the following legal standards, which may be relevant to his action:
Trespass is an unlawful interference with possession of property. The elements of trespass are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or control of the property; (2) the defendant's intentional, reckless, or negligent entry onto the property; (3) lack of permission for the entry or acts in excess of permission; (4) harm; and (5) the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm.Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc., 17 Cal.App. 5th 245, 261-62 (Cal.Ct.App. 2017), as modified (Nov. 6, 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
To the extent that Plaintiff claims an interference with personal property, the following standards regarding trespass to chattels may be relevant:
“Dubbed by Prosser the ‘little brother of conversion,' the tort of trespass to chattels allows recovery for interferences with possession of personal property ‘not sufficiently important to be classed as conversion, and so to compel the defendant to pay the full value of the thing with which he has interfered.' (Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed.1984) § 14, pp. 85-86.)
“Though not amounting to conversion, the defendant's interference must, to be actionable, have caused some injury to the chattel or to the plaintiff's rights in it. Under California law, trespass to chattels ‘lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal property has proximately caused injury.' (Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1566[, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 468], italics added.) In cases of interference with possession of personal property not amounting to conversion, ‘the owner has a cause of action for trespass or case, and may recover only the actual damages suffered by reason of the impairment of the property or the loss of its use.' (Zaslow v. Kroenert [ (1946) ] 29 Cal.2d [541, ] 551[, 176 P.2d 1], italics added; accord, Jordan v. Talbot (1961) 55 Cal.2d 597, 610[, 12 Cal.Rptr. 488, 361 P.2d 20].) In modern American law generally, ‘[t]respass remains as an occasional remedy for minor interferences, resulting in some damage, but not sufficiently serious or sufficiently important to amount to the greater tort' of conversion.” (Prosser & Keeton, Torts, supra, § 15, p. 90, italics added.)Jamgotchian v. Slender, 170 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1400-01 (Cal.Ct.App. 2009)
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state any cognizable claims.
Under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Accordingly, the Court will provide Plaintiff with time to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified above. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days.
If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint must allege violations under the law as discussed above. Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not for the purpose of changing the nature of this suit or adding unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).
Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and must be complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading, Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First Amended Complaint, ” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury.
Alternatively, Plaintiff may choose to stand on this complaint, in which case the Court will issue findings and recommendations to the District Judge recommending dismissal of the action consistent with this order.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a complaint for a civil case form (Form - Pro Se 1);
2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either:
a. File a First Amended Complaint; or b. Notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on his complaint.
3. Should Plaintiff choose to amend his complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the amended complaint “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the case number 1:22-cv-00427-JLT-EPG; and
4. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action
IT IS SO ORDERED.