Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02239/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02239-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUOC H. NGUYEN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FRANK,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-2239-DJC-CKD (PS)

ORDER

Plaintiff, Quoc H. Nguyen, proceeds without counsel and has filed a first amended 

complaint which is before the court for screening.1 The amended complaint fails to establish the 

court’s jurisdiction and fails to state a claim. The amended complaint must be dismissed, but 

plaintiff is granted another opportunity to amend.

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 

proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 

claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 

immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 

1 Because plaintiff proceeds without counsel, this action is referred to the undersigned by Local 

Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 2:24-cv-02239-DJC-CKD Document 9 Filed 12/17/24 Page 1 of 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

2

(2000). In performing this screening, the court liberally construes a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings. 

See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice[.]” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Pro se litigants are entitled to have their 

pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Eldridge, 832 F.2d at 

1137. Nevertheless, to survive screening, a plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which 

requires sufficient factual detail to allow the court to reasonably infer that a named defendant is 

liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed because it failed to identify a basis for the

court’s jurisdiction, failed to include any factual allegations, and did not specify what relief 

plaintiff sought. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint names three defendants and includes an 

attachment with what appear to be factual allegations for this case. However, the amended 

complaint does not establish the court’s jurisdiction and it is still unclear what relief plaintiff 

seeks through this lawsuit.

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. 

Of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). In general, federal courts hear cases that arise in diversity 

or present a federal question. See U.S. CONST. art. III §§ 1–2; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-32.

The presumption is against jurisdiction and “the burden of establishing the contrary rests 

upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Vacek v. U.S. Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 

2006) (citing Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks 

subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see

Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) (court may 

dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction).

Case 2:24-cv-02239-DJC-CKD Document 9 Filed 12/17/24 Page 2 of 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

3

The first amended complaint asserts diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as a 

jurisdictional basis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of 

all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, ... and is 

between ... citizens of different States....”). However, diversity jurisdiction is not established by 

the complaint’s allegations. Plaintiff’s address of record is in California and the only defendant 

listed with a listed address, Frank Nguyen, is also located in California. (ECF No. 9 at 4.) The 

complaint’s allegations do not establish diversity of citizenship. “Section 1332 requires complete 

diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the 

defendants.” Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001).

Plaintiff also has not established federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (the 

federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). There is no federal law or statute cited in the 

first amended complaint that governs an issue or claim alleged.

B. No Claims Stated

Plaintiff’s allegations are difficult to understand, but it appears he alleges that defendant 

Frank Nguyen damaged the fence on plaintiff’s property and threatened plaintiff’s life. (ECF No. 

8 at 6.) Plaintiff notes he has opened many cases and “doesn’t have a date going to federal court 

yet[.]” (Id. at7.) Plaintiff lists various names of people and their relationship to plaintiff in case he 

is “wiped out.” (Id. at 7.)

The first amended complaint does not give fair notice of any cognizable claims and the 

grounds on which they rest. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, even a 

pro se litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a claim plainly and 

succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The 

complaint also does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim as required by Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 8(a)(2). The complaint does not describe the specific conduct any defendant is alleged to have 

engaged in that violated plaintiff’s rights. The amended complaint must be dismissed because it 

does not contain factual content to allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that a 

defendant has violated plaintiff’s rights. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 

Case 2:24-cv-02239-DJC-CKD Document 9 Filed 12/17/24 Page 3 of 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

4

1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot determine from the complaint who is 

being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”).

To the extent plaintiff brings this action against defendant Frank for damaging plaintiff’s 

property or threatening plaintiff’s life, those allegations do not state a federal claim. As set forth 

above, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Because 

diversity of citizenship does not exist between plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff must present a 

federal question in order for this court to have jurisdiction over any claims. Allegations of 

property damage and threats are not based on any federal statutes or violation of the United States 

Constitution. If plaintiff has any claims based on alleged property damage or threats, it appears 

those claims would be governed by state law, if they are cognizable. As set forth, though, the 

amended pleads insufficient facts to state any claim. 

III. CONCLUSION

The amended complaint must be dismissed, but plaintiff is granted another opportunity to 

amend. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). A further amended 

complaint should be titled “Second Amended Complaint.” Local Rule 220 requires that an 

amended complaint be complete by itself. Each claim and the involvement of each defendant 

must be sufficiently alleged without reference to any prior pleading. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 

55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967).

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 8) is dismissed with leave to amend; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and the Local Rules of Practice; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this 

order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: December 17, 2024

8, nguy24cv2239.scrn.fac

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-02239-DJC-CKD Document 9 Filed 12/17/24 Page 4 of 4