From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Foster v. Roseville FBI

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 9, 2022
2:22-cv-943-TLN-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-943-TLN-KJN PS

06-09-2022

MARTIN LEE FOSTER, Plaintiff, v. ROSEVILLE FBI, Defendant.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

(ECF NO. 1.)

KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel in this action, requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing the commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person who is unable to pay such fees). The court finds that it lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting the federal court's independent duty to ensure it has subject matter jurisdiction in the case). Accordingly, the court recommends that the action be dismissed, and that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis in this court be denied as moot.

Actions where a party proceeds without counsel are referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. Resolution of dispositive matters by a magistrate judge are to be filed as findings and recommendations. See Local Rule 304.

Legal Standards

The court must dismiss a case if, at any time, it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). A federal district court generally has jurisdiction over a civil action when: (1) a federal question is presented in an action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” or (2) there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). However, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider claims that are “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537 (1974) (court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims that are “essentially fictitious, ” “obviously frivolous” or “obviously without merit”); see also Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by & through Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 549-50 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that the “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” standard for dismissing claims operates under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of federal question jurisdiction). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327; Rule 12(h)(3).

Pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & fn. 7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post-Iqbal). Prior to dismissal, the court is to tell the plaintiff of deficiencies in the complaint and provide an opportunity to cure-if it appears at all possible the defects can be corrected. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, if amendment would be futile, no leave to amend need be given. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).

Analysis

Here, plaintiff's complaint is vague and at times unintelligible. Nevertheless, liberally construed, the complaint alleges that the sole named defendant, The Roseville Department of the FBI, failed to investigate claims plaintiff made while incarcerated concerning the current governor's alleged involvement in a “children's sex operation.” Plaintiff claims he witnessed fantastical events while visiting the capitol building, which caused him distress. He brings suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) for alleged violations of his Constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1.) The court recommends dismissal on the basis of frivolity. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 89 (no subject matter jurisdiction over claims completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy); Hagans, 415 U.S. at 537 (court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims that are “essentially fictitious, ” “obviously frivolous” or “obviously without merit”); Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325 (a claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact); see also Grancare, 889 F.3d at 549-50.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be DENIED AS MOOT;
2. The action be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as frivolous; and
3. The Clerk of Court be directed to CLOSE this case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).


Summaries of

Foster v. Roseville FBI

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 9, 2022
2:22-cv-943-TLN-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2022)
Case details for

Foster v. Roseville FBI

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN LEE FOSTER, Plaintiff, v. ROSEVILLE FBI, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 9, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-943-TLN-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2022)