Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06278/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06278-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 02:437 Federal Election Commission

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVE DEL CASTELLO,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-6278 PJH

v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

AND DENYING REQUEST TO 

BRUCE MCPHERSON, Secretary PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

of State, et al.

Defendants.

_______________________________/

The court has received plaintiff’s complaint and application to proceed in forma

pauperis, both filed in this district on October 5, 2006 and reassigned to and received by

this court on October 23, 2006. Because there is no legal basis for plaintiff's complaint, the

court denies plaintiff’s application and dismisses the complaint sua sponte.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), "[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the

commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees and costs or security

therefor, by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give

security therefor." In reviewing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the court may

dismiss a case sua sponte if the court determines that the party applying for in forma

pauperis status has filed a frivolous action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Jackson v. Arizona,

885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a frivolous claim is

one that lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989). Dismissal on these grounds are often made sua

sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the

inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints. Id., 490 U.S. at 324, 109 S. Ct.

at 1831. Where a litigant is acting pro se and the court finds the litigant's complaint

Case 4:06-cv-06278-PJH Document 8 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must give the litigant

notice of the deficiencies of the complaint and an opportunity to amend before final

dismissal, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be

cured by amendment. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Eldridge v.

Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135-37 (9th Cir. 1987).

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that in connection with a June 2006 primary election that

occurred somewhere in this district, federal and state election law provisions were violated

by the candidate for the Republican Party, Mike De Nunzio. See Complaint, ¶¶ 2-3, p. 1. 

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that candidate De Nunzio violated three different provisions of

state election law: (1) he violated the “penal provisions” regarding the solicitation of funds

pursuant to “Article 6 Section 18360"; (2) he violated “[s]ection 20201" regarding the

“solicitation of funds for use by political party without written consent of the party”; and (3)

he violated “[s]ection 20007" regarding the “representation of support of committee or

organization named after Political Party with which candidate not affiliated.” Complaint, p.1. 

Referenced in the complaint, without real explanation, are Exhibits A, B, and C to the

complaint, which contain photocopies of fliers related to De Nunzio’s campaign. See

Complaint, Exs. A-B. While plaintiff nowhere alleges the nature of her injury, she does

allege that she was the only other candidate on behalf of the Republican Party in the June

2006 primary. Id. at ¶ 4. Plaintiff demands that the court order “an audit based on

attached evidence and [the] immediate resignation of ... Mike De Nunzio and removal of his

name from ballot is appropriate”. See id. at prayer for relief. Plaintiff has also filed a

corresponding request for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), in which she requests an

“expedient hearing.” Id. at TRO. 

Preliminarily, these allegations are insufficient to demonstrate that the federal courts

have subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. The federal courts are only permitted

to hear disputes that arise from a violation of a federal law, or disputes between citizens of

different states with over $75,000 in dispute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. As such,

Case 4:06-cv-06278-PJH Document 8 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

plaintiff must demonstrate either that she and all defendants are citizens of different states,

or that the defendant(s) have violated her federal rights. The three statutory violations

stated in plaintiff’s complaint arise under state law, not federal. Yet plaintiff nowhere

includes allegations regarding the parties’ diversity, or the amount in controversy. 

Alternatively, while plaintiff generally states that the complaint arises “under the laws of the

U.S.” and that De Nunzio has violated “Federal Election Law,” plaintiff nowhere provides

any citation or reference to any federal law in particular. Therefore, as currently pled, it is

impossible for the court to determine whether the federal courts are empowered to hear the

instant dispute. 

Furthermore, it is impossible to discern from plaintiff’s complaint the precise legal

theories under which plaintiff seeks relief. Despite the invocation of the above-referenced

state law provisions, plaintiff fails to identify any recognizable causes of action stemming

from those provisions, fails to allege the nature of any harm or injury suffered as a result of

either defendant Bruce McPherson or real party in interest De Nunzio’s actions, and fails to

allege specific facts creating any causal link between her causes of action and her injury. 

In short, plaintiff has failed to set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief", as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

Accordingly, pursuant to its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court hereby

DISMISSES plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and because as such,

it is frivolous. However, the court will nonetheless allow plaintiff an opportunity to file an

amended complaint. For that amended complaint to be successful, plaintiff must

demonstrate a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, must allege separate causes of

action, must state a constitutional or statutory basis for each cause of action, and must

allege facts showing each defendant’s personal involvement in the wrongful act alleged in

each cause of action, as well as plaintiff’s harm or injury. Any amended complaint must be

filed no later than November 29, 2006.

Case 4:06-cv-06278-PJH Document 8 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

If plaintiff fails to file the amended complaint by November 29, 2006, or if she files an

amended complaint not in accordance with the above instructions, the case will be

dismissed with prejudice. 

Because the court orders dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, plaintiff’s request

to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Plaintiff’s attached request for a temporary

restraining order is similarly DENIED, in view of the court’s ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06278-PJH Document 8 Filed 10/31/06 Page 4 of 4