Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01055/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01055-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DIANA LEE WALLACH LORRETZ, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JEWISH FEDERATION, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 12-cv-1055 - BEN (NLS) 

ORDER SUA SPONTE SCREENING 

AND DISMISSING AMENDED 

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

Plaintiff Diana Lee Wallach Lorretz, proceeding pro se, has filed an amended complaint 

alleging that Defendant Jewish Federation did not allow her to learn Hebrew and otherwise harmed 

her and her family. The Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but 

dismissed the complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. [Doc. No.4.] Having 

considered Plaintiffs amended complaint, the Court DISMISSES it for failure to state a claim. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Factual allegations 

The allegations in Plaintiffs amended complaint comprise one paragraph spanning twenty 

three lines of text. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jewish Federation has "deliberately obstructed" 

certain Jewish persons' efforts. Those persons are Plaintiff herself, her only sibling, their parents, and 

Plaintiffs husband. It is unclear, however, what specific "efforts" were obstructed. 

Plaintiff describes herself as a "naturopathic orthodox Jewish agriculture person," who "drinks 

- 1 - 12cv1055 

Case 3:12-cv-01055-BEN-NLS Document 7 Filed 05/18/12 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 

goat milk, [is] anti-drugs, [and an] enrolled student." Plaintiffs father built a nuclear power plant. 

Plaintiff was forced out ofIsrael and back to the United States on three occasions: twice in 2010 and 

once in 2012. Plaintiff has attempted to return (apparently, unsuccessfully) to Israel since 1957. No 

one taught Plaintiff Hebrew (presumably, while she was in Israel). This appears to be significant to 

Plaintiff, because her parents and grandparents do not speak English. 

Defendant recently told Plaintiff"to buy a Cricket cell phone." Also, in 2011, Defendant told 

Plaintiff"to go to Gary and Mary West Senior Center" in San Diego, "instead ofanywhere else," when 

Plaintiff arrived from New York City. Defendant's activity allegedly includes premeditated murder. 

II. Sua sponte screening 

An in forma pauperis complaint is subject to mandatory screening. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915( e )(2)(B), notwithstanding any filing fee, the Court must dismiss any complaint if at any time 

the Court determines that 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." The sua 

sponte screening is mandatory. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en bane); 

see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845,845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) ("[T]he provisions of28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners." (citation omitted)). 

"The language of§ 1915( e )(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language ofFederal Rule ofCivil Procedure 

12(b)(6)." Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). To survive a motion 

to dismiss under Rule 12(b)( 6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 

to state a plausible claim to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). "Dismissal can 

be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a 

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

In the present case, as can be seen from the factual recitations above, Plaintiffs amended 

complaint fails to state any legal theory for recovery against Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that she was 

not taught Hebrew and was otherwise harmed by Defendant, but she does not provide the Court with 

any statutory or constitutional authority that would allow her to recover for this alleged harm. 

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court must DISMISS the amended 

complaint because it fails to allege any cognizable legal theory for recovery against Defendant. 

~ 2 - 12cv1055 

Case 3:12-cv-01055-BEN-NLS Document 7 Filed 05/18/12 Page 2 of 3
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiffs amended complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND for 

failure to state a claim. IfPlaintiff wishes to amend her complaint, she should file a second amended 

complaint, which addresses the deficiencies described above, no later than June 11,2012. The second 

amended complaint should be complete in and of itself and should not refer to any prior pleadings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: Ma~012 

- 3 - 12cvl055 

Case 3:12-cv-01055-BEN-NLS Document 7 Filed 05/18/12 Page 3 of 3