Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01415/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01415-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LIUDMYLA IEGOROVA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BARACK OBAMA, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-1415-GEB-EFB PS 

ORDER 

 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the 

undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff requests 

authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis, and has submitted the 

affidavit required thereunder which demonstrates that he is unable to prepay fees and costs or 

give security for them. ECF No. 2. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is 

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

 Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required 

inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the 

allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-01415-GEB-EFB Document 4 Filed 11/12/14 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

 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 

fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 

(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 

his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 

a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are 

true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate 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). 

 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations 

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), 

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the 

plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy 

the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) 

“requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds 

upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing 

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

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

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

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, 

confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction 

requires that the complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a 

“case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be 

authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal 

jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity 

Case 2:14-cv-01415-GEB-EFB Document 4 Filed 11/12/14 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

jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the 

matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World 

Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction 

of the federal courts unless demonstrated otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys 

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

 Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a short and plain statement showing that he is 

entitled to relief. Instead, plaintiff’s twenty-nine page complaint is nearly incomprehensible and 

contains disjointed allegations. Plaintiff purports to assert claims against President Barack 

Obama based on plaintiff’s belief that the executive branch of the United States has shown 

disrespect to his medical condition and to his children and grandchildren. ECF No. 1 at 26. 

Plaintiff also claims that the United States government has attempted to assassinate him, his son, 

and his grandchildren. Id. The complaint also makes several references to a “Russian-American 

conspiracy,” which plaintiff claims is responsible for the kidnapping and physically and 

psychologically abusing his grandchildren. Id. at 3. 

 The complaint also describes numerous incidents in which unnamed individuals have 

attempted to try to hit and kill plaintiff with their vehicles. The complaint is also littered with 

claims that government officials have failed to investigate crimes reported by plaintiff. As for the 

relief sought, the complaint seeks, among other things, that the court provide him with 

independent living in a private gated community with his care provider, that a hearing be held 

where a group of neurologists from Switzerland, France, Ukraine and the United Nations provide 

opinions on the neurological damage his grandchildren sustained, and that the court invite 

Ukrainian journalists to report on crimes that violate Ukrainian law. 

 The complaint, however, does not allege any specific causes of action or any facts in 

support of a cause of action. Because it is unclear from plaintiff’s complaint whether he alleges 

any cognizable legal theory, the complaint must be dismissed. However, plaintiff is granted leave 

to file an amended complaint, if he can allege a cognizable legal theory and sufficient facts in 

support of that cognizable legal theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) 

Case 2:14-cv-01415-GEB-EFB Document 4 Filed 11/12/14 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

(en banc) (district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any 

deficiency in their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the 

amended complaint shall clearly set forth the allegations against defendant and shall specify a 

basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Any amended complaint shall plead plaintiff’s 

claims in “numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of 

circumstances,” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b), and shall be in doublespaced text on paper that bears line numbers in the left margin, as required by Eastern District of 

California Local Rules 130(b) and 130(c). Any amended complaint shall also use clear headings 

to delineate each claim alleged and against which defendant or defendants the claim is alleged, as 

required by Rule 10(b), and must plead clear facts that support each claim under each header. 

 Additionally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to 

make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 

complete in itself. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the 

original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, once 

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves any function in the case. 

Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not 

alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 

1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to 

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order 

may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See Local Rule 110. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 

 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as provided herein. 

 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-01415-GEB-EFB Document 4 Filed 11/12/14 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

be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to timely file an amended complaint in 

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed. 

DATED: November 12, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-01415-GEB-EFB Document 4 Filed 11/12/14 Page 5 of 5