Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00931/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00931-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANKLIN R. MILLS,

Plaintiff, 

vs. No. CIV S-05-0931 MCE GGH PS

CITY OF REDDING, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Presently pending on this court’s law and motion calendar for July 30, 2005, is

defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or for a more definite

statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Monique Grandaw appeared for defendants. 

Plaintiff appeared in pro se. After carefully reviewing the record, the court recommends that

defendants’ motion be granted without leave to amend.

LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS

A complaint should not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) unless it appears

beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of its claims which would entitle

plaintiff to relief. NOW, Inc. v. Schiedler, 510 U.S. 249, 256, 114 S. Ct. 798, 803 (1994);

Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274-75 (9th Cir. 1993). Dismissal may be based

either on the lack of cognizable legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support

cognizable legal theories. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 2:05-cv-00931-MCE -GGH Document 22 Filed 07/06/05 Page 1 of 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

2

The complaint’s factual allegations are accepted as true. Church of Scientology of

California v. Flynn, 744 F.2d 694 (9th Cir.1984). The court construes the pleading in the light

most favorable to plaintiff and resolves all doubts in plaintiff’s favor. Parks School of Business,

Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir.1995). General allegations are presumed to

include specific facts necessary to support the claim. NOW, 510 U.S. at 256, 114 S. Ct. at 803,

quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2137 (1992). 

The court may disregard allegations contradicted by the complaint’s attached

exhibits. Durning v. First Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987); Steckman v. Hart

Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.1998). Furthermore, the court is not required to

accept as true allegations contradicted by judicially noticed facts. Mullis v. United States

Bankruptcy Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987). The court may consider matters of public

record, including pleadings, orders, and other papers filed with the court. Mack v. South Bay

Beer Distributors, 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986), abrogated on other grounds by Astoria

Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 111 S. Ct. 2166 (1991). “The court

is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those

conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness

Network, 18 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1994). Neither need the court accept unreasonable inferences, or

unwarranted deductions of fact. See Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th

Cir. 1981). 

 Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595-96 (1972). Unless it is clear that no

amendment can cure its defects, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend

the complaint before dismissal. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir.2000) (en

banc); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-00931-MCE -GGH Document 22 Filed 07/06/05 Page 2 of 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

3

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on May 12, 2005. Defendants are the City of

Redding, Chief of Police Moty and Redding Police Officer Severson, The complaint alleges that

although defendants issued him a notice to appear on March 28, 2005, as the result of a traffic

stop, he “is not a person subject to the State of California Statutes,” and Shasta County Superior

Court is a nonexistent court. Compl., at 2, 8. Plaintiff then proceeds to unintelligibly deride the

state’s judicial system. In the caption to the complaint, plaintiff cites numerous amendments to

the Constitution as well as trespass and constructive fraud; however, he does not set forth how

defendants have violated these amendments within the body of his complaint. He seeks no

monetary damages but requests injunctive relief in the form of a “mandamus requiring

defendants to cease and disist all act’s of Constructive fraud against Plaintiff untill Defendants

can issue a Notice to Appear to Plaintiff that will afford the Plaintiff the right to a Court with a

meaningfull Judicial Review, a Trial by Jury Known only At the Common Law.” [Sic]. (Id. at

9.) 

ANALYSIS

A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only those

cases authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co,

511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1 provides that the

judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court, “and in such inferior Courts

as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Congress therefore confers

jurisdiction upon federal district courts, as limited by U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. See Ankenbrandt

v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 697-99, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 2212 (1992). Lack of subject matter

jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. See Attorneys Trust v.

Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996).

The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal

question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Statutes which regulate specific subject

Case 2:05-cv-00931-MCE -GGH Document 22 Filed 07/06/05 Page 3 of 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

1

 Defendants’ reply contends that the opposition, served on June 14, 2005, was one day

late and should not be considered. Because the opposition adds nothing to the discussion, it does

not matter whether it was served timely or not.

4

matter may also confer federal jurisdiction. See generally, W.W. Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J.

Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 2:5. Unless a complaint presents a plausible

assertion of a substantial federal right, a federal court does not have jurisdiction. See Bell v.

Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S. Ct. 773, 776 (1945). A federal claim which is so insubstantial as

to be patently without merit cannot serve as the basis for federal jurisdiction. See Hagans v.

Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 587-38, 94 S. Ct. 1372, 1379-80 (1974). 

Defendants move to dismiss because plaintiff has not stated any facts which

support a cause of action. They state that Cal. Penal Code §§ 853.5 and 853.6 provide for a

notice to appear before a magistrate where a person is arrested without a warrant for an infraction

or a misdemeanor, and that Officer Severson complied with that law when he issued plaintiff a

notice to appear. As outlined above, the complaint does not state a claim for relief. Although

pro se pleadings are accorded a liberal pleading standard, plaintiff’s complaint is unintelligible

and to the extent it can be deciphered, it is frivolous. Plaintiff has not alleged how defendants

violated his federal constitutional rights, and therefore this court has no jurisdiction. Plaintiff has

also failed to set forth the elements of his causes of action for trespass and constructive fraud.

Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Answer re: dispute of motion to dismiss,”

which is construed as an opposition. Plaintiff states only that defendants’ motion is unsupported

by affidavits or depositions, and requests the court to consider facts outside the record.1

Plaintiff’s assertion has no merit. At hearing, plaintiff argued only that the magistrate judge only

has jurisdiction over territories and the Eastern District of California is not a territory. The

complaint is so frivolous that amendment is not capable of curing it. 

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-00931-MCE -GGH Document 22 Filed 07/06/05 Page 4 of 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

5

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed May 26, 2005, be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed with prejudice.

DATED: 7/5/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS,

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Mills0931.mtd.wpd

Case 2:05-cv-00931-MCE -GGH Document 22 Filed 07/06/05 Page 5 of 5