From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Iegorova v. U.S. State Dep't

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 4, 2018
No. 2:18-cv-01580-MCE-CKD PS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 4, 2018)

Opinion

No. 2:18-cv-01580-MCE-CKD PS

06-04-2018

LIUDMYLA IEGOROVA, Plaintiff, v. U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.


ORDER

Plaintiff Liudmyla Iegorova, who is proceeding without counsel in this action, has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff's application in support of her request to proceed in forma pauperis makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, the court grants plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis.

This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). --------

The determination that a plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if it determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.

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); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than "naked assertions," "labels and conclusions," or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). In other words, "[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). Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the well-pled factual allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is ordinarily entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1230 (9th Cir. 1984).

Here, plaintiff's complaint is rambling and difficult to follow. The complaint alleges that defendant the U.S. State Department has "received evidence of crime against Petitioner and ignored violation US Code, Documents UN, Refugee convention UN of July 28, 1951 [sic]." (ECF No 1 at 4.) Allegedly, defendant has ignored plaintiff's letters and emails about crimes that have allegedly occurred at a "HUD property." (Id. at 1.) According to the complaint, the manager of this property has committed fraud, assisted illegal aliens to commit crime, and illegally evicted plaintiff. (Id. at 1-4.) Plaintiff claims that she brings this complaint under United States Code §§ 241 and 1113. (See Id. at 1; ECF No. 1-1.) However, plaintiff fails to indicate which title of the United States Code she is referencing. Moreover, she fails to check any box on the civil cover sheet under "II. Basis of Jurisdiction." (ECF No. 1-1.)

The alleged facts in the complaint do not appear to state any cognizable claim. And, as explained, the complaint fails to clearly invoke any laws. Thus, the court cannot determine what legal claims plaintiff attempts to bring. For these reasons, the complaint is subject to dismissal.

Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff's pro se status, and because it is at least conceivable that plaintiff could allege additional facts to potentially state a claim, the court finds it appropriate to grant plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint.

If plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, it shall be captioned "First Amended Complaint," shall be typed or written in legible handwriting, shall address the deficiencies outlined in this order, and shall be filed within 28 days of this order. Further, the amended complaint shall (1) clearly specify the basis for the court's jurisdiction, and (2) clearly invoke the laws and/or legal theories, under which plaintiff brings her claims.

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior complaint or other filing in order to make plaintiff's first amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, and once the first amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case.

Finally, nothing in this order requires plaintiff to file a first amended complaint. If plaintiff determines that she is unable to amend her complaint in compliance with the court's order at this juncture, she may alternatively file a notice of voluntary dismissal of her claims without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) within 28 days of this order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.
2. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, but with leave to amend.

3. Within 28 days of this order, plaintiff shall file either (a) a first amended complaint in accordance with this order, or (b) a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.

4. Failure to file either a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal by the required deadline may result in the imposition of sanctions, including potential dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Dated: June 4, 2018

/s/_________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14/ps.18-1580.iegorova.IFP dismiss with leave to amend


Summaries of

Iegorova v. U.S. State Dep't

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 4, 2018
No. 2:18-cv-01580-MCE-CKD PS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 4, 2018)
Case details for

Iegorova v. U.S. State Dep't

Case Details

Full title:LIUDMYLA IEGOROVA, Plaintiff, v. U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 4, 2018

Citations

No. 2:18-cv-01580-MCE-CKD PS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 4, 2018)