Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01505/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01505-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DELTON L. CURTIS, JR., CASE NO. CV F 06-1505 OWW LJO

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION

vs.

ESTATE OF CHARLES DEAN CURTIS,

Defendant.

 /

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Delton L. Curtis, Jr. (“plaintiff”) is incarcerated and proceeds pro se and in forma

pauperis in this action. On October 23, 2006, plaintiff filed a documents which this Court construes as

a complaint (“complaint”) to claim that in 1964, plaintiff’s wealthy grandfather left nearly his entire

estate to plaintiff and that documents to that effect were left in a house nearly 40 years ago. The

complaint alleges plaintiff received a phone call to alert him that he “still had a chance at his

grandfather’s land.” The complaint alleges that plaintiff is “suposed [sic] to have some stock in a hotel

chain and some money in two back accounts one in the Cayman Islands and one in Switzerland.” In the

complaint, plaintiff claims “everything” except gun factory stock and that he plans to make a deal with

the U.S. Government to address taxes. The complaint requests this Court “to assign a case number so

an investigation can be started and warents [sic] can be ordered to search the house and its hiding places

for documental profe [sic] of my inheritance.” In the complaint, plaintiff acknowledges he cannot

Case 1:06-cv-01505-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 10/27/06 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

27

28

2

identify the “house.” The complaint seeks no specific relief other than “lets get this thing settled.”

DISCUSSION

Standards For Screening

“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). . . . Such dismissal

may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Service,

Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9 Cir. 1987); see Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-362 (9 Cir. 1981). Sua th th

sponte dismissal may be made before process is served on defendants. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 324 (1989) (dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) are often made sua sponte); Franklin v. Murphy,

745 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9 Cir. 1984) (court may dismiss frivolous in forma pauperis action sua sponte th

prior to service of process on defendants). 

When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, this Court, notwithstanding any filing fee that may

have been paid,shall dismiss a case at any time if the Court determines the action is frivolous, malicious,

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); 2 Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide:

Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2006) Attacking the Pleadings, para. 9:226.1, pp. 9-69. A court

need not accept as true factual allegations in in forma pauperis complaints and may reject “completely

baseless” allegations, including those which are “fanciful,” “fantastic” or “delusional.” Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-1228 (9 Cir. 1984). A th

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a fanciful factual allegation. Neitzke, 490

U.S. at 324. A federal court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably

meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

The test for maliciousness is a subjective one and requires the court to “determine the . . . good

faith of the applicant.” Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915); see Wright v.

Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968, n. 1 (11 Cir. 1986). A lack of good faith is found most commonly in th

repetitive suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of cost-free filing to file a multiplicity

of suits. A complaint is malicious if it suggests an intent to vex defendants or abuse the judicial process

Case 1:06-cv-01505-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 10/27/06 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

27

28

3

by relitigating claims decided in prior cases. Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981);

Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 209 (10 Cir. 1981); Ballentine v. Crawford, 563 F.Supp. 627, 628-629 th

(N.D. Ind. 1983); cf. Glick v. Gutbrod, 782 F.2d 754, 757 (7 Cir. 1986) (court has inherent power to

th

dismiss case demonstrating “clear pattern of abuse of judicial process”). A lack of good faith or malice

also can be inferred from a complaint containing untrue material allegations of fact or false statements

made with intent to deceive the court. See Horsey v. Asher, 741 F.2d 209, 212 (8 Cir. 1984). th

A complaint, or portion thereof, may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond

doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to

relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,

45-46 (1957)); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9 Cir. th

1981). “[W]hen a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the reception of any

evidence either by affidavit or admissions, its task is necessarily a limited one. The issue is not whether

a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support

claims.” Scheurer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1688 (1974); Gilligan v. Jamco Development

Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9 Cir. 1997). th

Based on the complaint’s allegations, the Court notes jurisdictional and related defects to prevent

plaintiff from offering evidence to support claims raised in the complaint.

Jurisdictional Deficiencies

F.R.Civ.P. 8 establishes general pleading rules and provides in pertinent part:

(a) Claims for Relief. A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall

contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds

of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader

seeks.

. . .

(e) Pleading to be Concise and Direct; Consistency. 

(1) Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise and direct.

A pleading may not simply allege a wrong has been committed and demand relief. The

underlying requirement is that a pleading give “fair notice” of the claim being asserted and the “grounds

Case 1:06-cv-01505-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 10/27/06 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

27

28

4

upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48, 78 S.Ct. 99, 103 (1957); Yamaguchi v.

United States Department of Air Force, 109 F.3d 1475, 1481 (9 Cir. 1997). Although a complaint need

th

not outline all elements of a claim, “[i]t must be possible . . . for an inference to be drawn that these

elements exist.” Walker v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5 Cir. 1990); Lewis th

v. ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-406 (6 Cir. 1998). Despite the flexible pleading th

policy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements

of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9 Cir. th

1984). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt facts which defendant

engaged in to support plaintiff’s claim. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649. 

The complaint addresses the estate of plaintiff’s grandfather and appearsto make a claim to most

of the estate. The settlement and distribution of estates and the right to succeed to the ownership of

realty and personalty are peculiarly state law matters, and federal courts generally have no probate

jurisdiction, even in diversity jurisdiction situations. Harris v. Zion’s Bank Co., 317 U.S. 447, 450.

(1943). Moreover, a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review final determinations of state

courts and claims “inextricably intertwined” with final state court decisions, even if such “inextricably

intertwined” claims were not raised in state court. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483-487 and n. 16 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923);

Olson Farms, Inc. v. Barbosa, 134 F.3d 933, 937 (9 Cir. 1998) (holding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine th

is jurisdictional). A federal district court is a court of original jurisdiction and has no authority to review

final determinations of state courts. Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 890 (9 Cir. th

1986); Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court of State of Cal. for County of Los Angeles, 23 F.3d 218, 221

(9 Cir. 1994). “[A] losing party in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be th

appellate review of the state judgment in a United States District Court, based on the losing party’s claim

that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.” Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997,

1005-1006 (1994). To the extent that plaintiff seeks review of state probate matters, this Court lack

jurisdiction to address them.

The complaint fails to allege a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. Since the complaint addresses

an estate matter reserved for state court, an attempt at amendment is unwarranted.

Case 1:06-cv-01505-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 10/27/06 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

27

28

5

Deficiencies As To Claims

F.R.Civ.P. 8(a) requires a short plain statement of plaintiff’s claim. The complaint describes that

to which plaintiff believes he is entitled. The complaint lacks sufficient facts as to the basis of plaintiff’s

claims. The complaint does not describe particular conduct or acts (such as, promises, contracts or

representations) to support a claim or to satisfy F.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The complaint seeks no particular

relief which this Court is able to provide, particularlygiven its lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, limitations

defenses appear given that the complaint addresses matters arising 40 or more years ago. An attempt

at amendment is unwarranted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court RECOMMENDS to DISMISS this action without

prejudice on grounds: (1) this Court lacks jurisdiction over the complaint’s claims; (2) the complaint

fails to satisfy pleading requirements; and (3) an attempt at amendment is unwarranted based on

jurisdictional defects and the complaint’s deficiencies.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge assigned

to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 72-304. No later than

November 29, 2006, plaintiff may file written objections to these findings and recommendations with

the Court and otherwise in compliance with this Court’s Local Rule 72-304(b). Such a document should

be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district court will

review the magistrate judge’s ruling, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is admonished that

failure to file objections within the specified time maywaive the right to appeal the district court’s order.

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Plaintiff is admonished not to attempt to file another complaint as plaintiff’s recourse is

to object to these findings and recommendations. Plaintiff is further admonished this Court will

strike any papers to attempt to file another complaint unless this Court specifically grants plaintiff

permission to file another complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01505-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 10/27/06 Page 5 of 5