Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00639/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00639-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARJIE JEAN HAYMON )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SBC, AT&T, and PG&E, )

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

CIV F 07-639 AWI DLB

ORDER ON FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND

DISMISSING CASE

(Doc. No. 8)

Plaintiff Marjie Jean Haymon (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed the instant action on

April 27, 2007, and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. On May 10, 2007, the Magistrate

Judge reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismissed it due to the

failure to plead jurisdictional facts. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 4. On July 11, 2007, Plaintiff

filed an amended complaint. See id. at Doc. No. 7. On July 23, 2007, the Magistrate Judge

issued Findings and Recommendations that the action be DISMISSED without leave to amend

on the grounds that Plaintiff again failed to plead adequate jurisdictional facts. See id. at Doc.

No. 8. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that

any objections were to be filed within ten (10) court days plus three days if served by mail. 

Plaintiff timely responded, but her response only states that she filed a statement of her case on

July 11, 2007, and attaches a copy of her July 11, 2007, amended complaint. See Court’s Docket

Doc. No. 9. 

Case 1:07-cv-00639-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 12/12/07 Page 1 of 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court agrees with the

ultimate conclusion of the Findings and Recommendation, but differs only with the analysis.

In construing pro se pleadings, those pleadings are to be liberally construed in the light

most favorable to the pro se litigant. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). 

The Findings and Recommendations recommend dismissal for failure to allege jurisdictional

facts. There is no allegation of diversity jurisdiction or of citizenship of the named Defendants. 

However, in the caption of the amended complaint, Plaintiff has written “Civil Rights Act, 42

U.S.C. § 1983.” Construing the complaint liberally, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is alleging

a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and thus, is alleging federal question jurisdiction. 

Nevertheless, to properly allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must allege that

Defendants are state actors and that a right secured by either federal law or the United States

Constitution has been violated by those state actors. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Ball v. Rodgers, 492

F.3d 1094, 1103 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 4 (1980));

Crumptom v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). The amended complaint alleges that a

wire came loose, fell, and hit Plaintiff. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 7. The amended complaint

alleges that she called PG&E, who informed her that the wire was that of SBC. See id. There

are no allegations that the Defendants are state actors and the allegations do not suggest that

Defendants are state actors. Further, there is no indication that any of Plaintiff’s federal rights

were violated when the wire came loose and fell. Instead, the allegations indicate a state law tort

claim against private parties. In other words, the complaint indicates that this is a state law

matter and that any action should proceed in state court. 

When amendment would be futile, leave to amend need not be granted. See Flowers v.

First Hawaiian Bank, 295 F.3d 966, 976 (9th Cir. 2002). Given the allegations in the complaint,

the Court believes that it is clear that the deficiencies of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim cannot be

cured by amendment. 

/ / /

Case 1:07-cv-00639-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend but without

prejudice to refiling in state court; and

2. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00639-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 3