Opinion
3:23-cv-00996-YY
07-26-2023
STEVEN F. STILES, ANDREA M. CASANOVA, and CASANOVA STILES FAMILY TRUST, Plaintiffs, v. CAROLINE ZAPP KAHN, AARON L. KAHN, JAN L. KAHN, and KAHN, SOARS, CONWAY LLP, Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
YOULEE YIM YOU, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
FINDINGS
Pro se plaintiff Steven F. Stiles has filed three actions in this court, all relating in some way to his wife, Andrea M. Casanova. The first case alleged claims pertaining to state court orders appointing Casanova's daughter, defendant Caroline Zapp Kahn, as guardian ad litem for Casanova and restraining plaintiff from having contact with Casanova. Stiles v. Kahn, et al, 3:23-cv-577-YY. That case was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) based on the Rooker Feldman doctrine and other grounds. Id. (Order, July 12, 2023). Plaintiff's second suit, Stiles, et al. v. Kahn, et al., 3:23-cv-00995-YY, is the subject of separate Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal. For the reasons explained below, this case, like the others, should also be dismissed.
The court has granted plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The IFP statute provides that “[n]otwithstanding 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 . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction; . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may include in the alternative or different types of relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(A). “Rule 8 does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroftv. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2006) (citations omitted). “A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id.“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
In addition to determining whether the complaint states a claim for relief, this court has a continuing obligation to determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over a case. Valdezv. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).
Federal courts hold a Pro se litigant's pleadings to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987); see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (per curiam) (holding a document filed Pro se “is to be liberally construed”; a plaintiff need only give the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds on which it rests) (citation omitted). “Although . . . Pro se litigant[s] . . . may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes [their] pleadings, those pleadings nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. U.S. Dep't of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff claims that defendant Jan Kahn, an attorney, and his law firm “prepared an extremely long and complex power of attorney in favor of Caroline Zapp Kahn” giving her control over land, improvements, and timber in the Casanova Stiles Family Trust. Plaintiff contends that the “goal of the illegal and damaging power of attorney is to blotch [sic] the title and prevent development, borrowing or selling of the 201 acres rural property,” and that “this sham money grab need[s] to be removed.”
To the extent plaintiff alleges claims on behalf of his wife, they must be dismissed. “Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him.” C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). “He has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.” Id. The same is true for claims that plaintiff alleges on behalf of the Casanova Stiles Family Trust. Even assuming plaintiff is the trustee of this trust, he has not alleged how the trust permits him to pursue claims Pro se on the trust's behalf. C.E. Pope Equity Tr., 818 F.2d at 698 (finding trustee could not claim that his status as trustee includes the right to present arguments Pro se in federal court).
Plaintiff otherwise fails to establish the court's jurisdiction. Plaintiff asserts the court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and represents that he is a citizen of California. But one of the defendants, Jan L. Kahn, is also a citizen of California. Thus, complete diversity does not exist between the parties. Catepillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (recognizing the “general-diversity statute . . . applies only to cases in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant”).
Plaintiff also fails to establish federal question jurisdiction. As the basis for his claims, plaintiff cites criminal statutes prohibiting false information and hoaxes and money laundering. But, as this court explained to plaintiff in his first case, courts have “rarely implied a private right of action under a criminal statute,” and where they have done so, “ there was at least a statutory basis for inferring that a civil cause of action of some sort lay in favor of someone.” Stiles v. Kahn, et al, 3:23-cv-00577-YY (Findings and Recommendations, May 16, 2023) (quoting Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 316 (1979)); see also Garcia v. Jones, No. 6:22-CV-00118-AA, 2022 WL 2754853, at *7 (D. Or. July 14, 2022) (“To the extent that Plaintiff's allegations of fraud, stalking, money laundering, and tampering with evidence assert violations of federal criminal statutes, such statutes do not generally create a private right of action or provide a basis for civil liability.”) (citing Abcarian v. Levine, 972 F.3d 1019, 1026 (9th Cir. 2020)). There is no statutory basis for inferring that a civil cause of action exists for the crimes that plaintiff has cited.
Plaintiff also cites 18 U.S.C. § 1952, which pertains to interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises, and 18 U.S.C. § 1959, which pertains to violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity. But, again, neither of those statutes suggest that there is a private cause of action for those crimes.
The law allows for civil remedies for a RICO violation. See 18 U.S.C. § 1964. But even if the complaint could somehow be construed to allege that defendants had formed an enterprise, plaintiff has failed to allege that defendants engaged in “a pattern of racketeering activity.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1961. The complaint does not allege that defendants engaged in any of the criminal acts that constitute racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), and fails to allege “at least two acts of racketeering activity” within ten years under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5).
Generally, a Pro se plaintiff should be given the opportunity to amend the complaint to state a valid claim for relief. However, here, there is no indication that amendment would be anything but futile. This is the third case that plaintiff has filed against Caroline Kahn, and it appears that plaintiff is attempting another end-run around the state court's order appointing her as guardian ad litem for his wife. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (holding that futility and bad faith are reasons to deny motion to amend). Therefore, dismissal is appropriate.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff's case should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
SCHEDULING ORDER
These Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due Wednesday, August 16, 2023. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement on that date.
If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement.
NOTICE
These Findings and Recommendations are not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of a judgment.