Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-00792/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-00792-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CEDRIC GREENE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOANNE DELGADO,

Defendant.

Case No. 20-cv-00792-TSH 

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff Cedric Greene filed this civil action and an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis. Compl., ECF No. 1; Appl., ECF No. 2. The Court granted the 

application but found he failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. ECF No. 5. The 

Court directed Greene to file an amended complaint that addressed the deficiencies of his original 

complaint or risk dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Greene has now filed a reply, which 

the Court construes as an amended complaint. ECF No. 6. Greene also filed a request for 

reassignment to a District Judge. ECF No. 7. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds the 

amended complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e). Accordingly, the Court requests this case be reassigned to a District Judge, with the 

recommendation that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.

II. BACKGROUND

Greene brings this case against Defendant Joanne Delgado, yet other than her name 

appearing in the caption of his initial complaint, Greene provided no factual allegations related to 

her. He stated he “does not have a credible name in the Court’s [sic] for the state of California’s 

Case 4:20-cv-00792-PJH Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

state and federal judicial system,” but he “has been smeared by multiple judicial venues 

underneath this Appeals Circuit.” Compl. at 2, ECF No. 1. Greene “and his inner circle” ask the 

Court to “approve for filing and processing of his civil complaint outside of its judicial venue.” 

Id. 

On February 5, 2020, the Court issued a screening order, advising Greene that he must 

amend his complaint to explain why this Court has the power to decide his case, as he had not 

asserted any claims based on federal law (or any claims, for that matter), and there was no 

indication that all parties are citizens of different states. ECF No. 5. The Court also advised him 

that he failed to show that Delgado has the minimum contact with California necessary to establish 

personal jurisdiction, as there was no indication Delgado lives in California, did something here 

that is the reason for his lawsuit, agreed to be sued here, or has done things that have had 

significant effects in California. As Greene’s address is in Los Angeles, the Court also advised 

him that he must explain why the Northern District of California is the proper location for his 

lawsuit. Finally, the Court advised Greene that his complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because 

he did not identify or adequately describe any claim or claims he seeks to bring against Delgado 

and he does not allege any facts related to her. The Court informed Greene that he must amend 

the complaint to state as clearly as possible the facts giving rise to the complaint and explain why 

each named defendant is being sued by making specific factual allegations that connect each 

defendant with the alleged wrongdoing, and specifically identifying the claim(s) asserted against 

each defendant. 

On February 14, 2020, Greene filed a “Reply in Support of Plaintiff Cedric Greene’s 

Immediate Motion for Change of Venue.” ECF No. 6. In it, Greene alleges the Court “appears to 

ignore the necessary relief that Mr. Green and his family has sought” and that he “further declines 

to his case factors being before the Northern District of California.” Id. at 2. Greene further 

alleges that “[s]uch actions from California officials are worse than the Impeachment proceedings 

concerning our Nation’s 45th President” and that “Mr. Greene on the other hand, does not have the 

identical support as Mr. Trump. Cedric Greene also does not have the support of the Northern 

District’s Appeals Circuit.” Id. 

Case 4:20-cv-00792-PJH Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

III. SUA SPONTE SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)

A. Legal Standard

The in forma pauperis statute provides that the Court must dismiss a complaint if it is 

frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a 

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). To make this determination, 

courts assess whether there is a factual and legal basis for the asserted wrong, “however inartfully 

pleaded.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984) (quotation omitted). Pro 

se pleadings are liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). 

The Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no 

request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly 

be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

B. Analysis

1. Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction

As courts of limited jurisdiction, “federal courts have an independent obligation to ensure 

that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 

562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting 

that district courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject matter 

jurisdiction”). There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A 

district court has federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, 

laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331. A cause of action “arises under federal law 

only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.” Hansen v. Blue 

Cross of Cal., 891 F.2d 1384, 1386 (9th Cir. 1989). A district court has diversity jurisdiction 

“where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between citizens 

of different states, or citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” Id.

Here, Greene still has not asserted any claims based on federal law (or any claims, for that 

matter), and there is no indication that all parties are citizens of different states. Accordingly, it 

does not appear that this Court has the power to decide his case. 

Case 4:20-cv-00792-PJH Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

2. Personal Jurisdiction and Venue

In addition, a federal court in California can only hear cases in which it has power, or 

personal jurisdiction, over the person or organization being sued. The plaintiff bears the burden of 

establishing that the court has jurisdiction. Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th 

Cir. 2006). Courts properly exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant “if it is permitted by a 

long-arm statute and if the exercise of jurisdiction does not violate federal due process.” Pebble 

Beach Co., 453 F.3d at 1154. “Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the 

bounds of their jurisdiction over persons.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014). 

Because “California’s long-arm statute allows the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the full 

extent permissible under the U.S. Constitution,” a court’s inquiry centers on whether exercising 

jurisdiction comports with due process. Id.; see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10 (“A court of this 

state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or 

of the United States.”). Due process requires that nonresident defendants have “minimum 

contact” with the forum state such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction “does not offend 

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 

310, 316 (1945) (internal quotations omitted). 

Here, Greene has still not shown that Delgado has the minimum contact with California 

necessary to establish personal jurisdiction. There is no indication Delgado lives in California, did 

something here that is the reason for his lawsuit, agreed to be sued here, or has done things that 

have had significant effects in California. Accordingly, Greene has failed to show this Court has 

the necessary power over Delgado. In addition, given that his address is in Los Angeles, Greene 

has failed to explain why the Northern District of California is the proper location for his lawsuit. 

Venue is usually determined by where a matter occurs or where a litigant resides. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1391.

3. Rule 8

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the complaint set forth a 

“short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(d)(1)

requires that each allegation in a pleading be “simple, concise, and direct.” See McHenry v. 

Case 4:20-cv-00792-PJH Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that was 

“argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”). The failure to comply 

with Rule 8 is a basis for dismissal that is not dependent on whether the complaint is without 

merit. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, even claims which 

are not on their face subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may still be dismissed for violating 

Rule 8(a). Id. In addition, the complaint must include facts which are “more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007). 

Here, Greene’s complaint still does not comply with Rule 8 because it does not set forth a 

short and plain statement of his claim(s). Specifically, the complaint still does not identify or 

adequately describe any claim or claims he seeks to bring against Delgado and he does not allege 

any facts related to her. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis above, the Court finds Greene fails to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted. As not all parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the Clerk of Court shall REASSIGN this case to a District 

Judge, with the recommendation that the Complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party may serve and file objections to 

this Report and Recommendation within 14 days after being served. Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: February 18, 2020

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00792-PJH Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 Page 5 of 5