Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00076/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00076-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANNON O. MURPHY,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICE OF THE U.S. SENATOR, 

KAMALA HARRIS,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-00076-SK 

ORDER REGARDING 

REASSIGNMENT AND REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

Regarding Docket No. 11

On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff Shannon O. Murphy (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint and 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkts. 1, 2.) The Court granted the application but 

ordered a hold on the service of the complaint. (Dkt. 6.) On January 8, 2019, the Court issued a 

screening order in which it found that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief may be 

granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). (Dkt. 5.) The Court granted Plaintiff permission to file 

an amended complaint by February 8, 2019, addressing the deficiencies described in its screening 

order. (Id.) On February 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the screening 

order. (Dkt. 7.) The Court issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration and extending 

the deadline to file an amended complaint to March 11, 2019. (Dkt. 8.) The Court admonished 

Plaintiff that if he failed to file an amended complaint stating a claim for relief by the deadline, 

dismissal would be the likely result. The Court further directed Plaintiff to the Northern District 

of California guide for pro se litigants, as well as the Legal Help Center.

On April 1, 2019, the Court issued a referral for reassignment and report and 

recommendation to dismiss because Plaintiff had failed to file an amended complaint within the 

time limit prescribed in the Court’s screening order and because all parties have not consented to 

magistrate jurisdiction. (Dkt. 9.) However, also on April 1, 2019, shortly after the Court issued its 

Case 4:19-cv-00076-YGR Document 14 Filed 04/05/19 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

report, Plaintiff did file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Dkt. 11.) Plaintiff 

contemporaneously filed a request for reconsideration of the Court’s February 11 order extending 

the deadline to file the amended complaint, citing mental health issues as the reason for his failure 

to timely file an amended complaint. (Dkt. 10.) Although Plaintiff had not complied with the 

deadlines set by the Court, the Court overlooked the tardy filing of the FAC, given that Plaintiff is 

proceeding pro se and suffers from poor health. The Court vacated its order for reassignment and 

report recommending dismissal and concomitantly denied Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration as 

moot. (Dkt. 13.)

The Court now considers the substance of Plaintiff’s FAC and finds that it fails to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Accordingly, the Court 

ORDERS that the case be reassigned and RECOMMENDS that the case be dismissed without 

prejudice.

Plaintiff is a resident of Pittsburg, California. Like his original complaint, Plaintiff’s FAC

asserts fraud, discrimination, defamation, negligence, physical and emotional distress. (Dkt. 11.) 

Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief, including punitive damages, against the “Office of 

the U.S. Senator, Kamala Harris.” (Id.) Attached to the FAC are two identical letters, dated April 

4, 2018, and April 27, 2018, in which Senator Harris appears to be responding a request for help 

from Murphy and asks Murphy to provide information to the San Francisco Office of Senator 

Harris so that she may be of assistance. (Id.) A third letter from the National Guard Bureau sent 

on behalf of then acting Secretary of Defense Robert Gates appears to provide information to 

Plaintiff in response to a request; it indicates that he was separated from the California National 

Guard on March 1, 2006, and that neither the Army nor the California National Guard have any 

records corresponding to incidents about which Plaintiff requested information. (Id.)

The FAC is vague. The claim for fraud alleges that the letters from Senator Harris 

constitute fraudulent conduct and misappropriation of government resources. (Id., ¶ 1.) The claim 

for discrimination asserts that Senator Harris failed to acknowledge the U.S. Army service 

member’s “official distress message.” (Id., ¶ 2.) The claim for defamation states that “defamation 

occurred by [the] Senator’s office attendant(s), since Plaintiff did inform them that his active 

Case 4:19-cv-00076-YGR Document 14 Filed 04/05/19 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

military duty entity, character, was involved in a military crisis, emergency situation, and for a 

period of exceed 6-months, unfair response.” (Id., ¶3.) The claim for negligence is based on the 

letters from Senator Harris. Plaintiff alleges that the letters were sent with the purpose of causing 

further pain, suffering and panic attacks, and suggests that the request for information ignores 

information previously provided by Plaintiff. (Id., ¶ 4.) The fifth claim for “injury/illness” is for 

panic attacks caused by the “Senator’s office attendant’s ignorant reports.” (Id., ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff seeks (i) to compel a response from Senator Harris for his “official distress 

message” following documents faxed to Senator Harris on April 4, 2018 and a congressional 

inquiry and investigation, (ii) assistance after he lost VA compensation and pension benefits 

despite his bipolar disorder, (iii) monetary damages for his treatment in the sum of $500,000, and 

(iv) punitive damages. (Id., p. 3.)

JURISDICTION

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and a “federal court is presumed to lack 

jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. 

Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). Generally, original 

federal jurisdiction is premised on federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Here, 

Plaintiff does not assert a violation of federal law or diversity jurisdiction.

STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” To comport with Rule 8, “[s]pecific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 

grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 

While a complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations, it is “a plaintiff’s obligation to 

provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief.’” Bell v. Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). Plaintiff must provide more than assert “labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. 

Rather, the plaintiff must provide sufficient factual allegations “to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

Case 4:19-cv-00076-YGR Document 14 Filed 04/05/19 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a frivolous claim is one that lacks an arguable basis in 

either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Dismissal on these grounds is 

often ordered sua sponte prior to the issuance of service of process to spare prospective defendants 

the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints. Id. at 1831. Where a litigant is 

acting pro se and the Court finds the litigant’s complaint is frivolous within the meaning of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must give the litigants notice of the deficiencies of the complaint 

and an opportunity to amend unless it is clear that the deficiencies could not be cured by 

amendment. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s FAC does not comply with Rule 8 because it does not provide facts that support 

his claim that Senator Harris or anyone from her office harmed him. Nor does the FAC establish 

that Senator Harris or her staff violated Plaintiff’s rights. Rather, it appears that Plaintiff seeks 

help in dealing with the denial of benefits by the Veteran’s Administration. Based on the Court’s 

reading of the FAC, Plaintiff visited Washington, D.C., where he attempted to contact the 

Pentagon and then acting Secretary of Defense Gates regarding a complaint related to his military 

service. (Dkt. 11, p.4.) While there, a military police official apparently advised Plaintiff to return 

home and write his congressperson regarding his complaint. (Id.) In turn, Plaintiff’s claims 

appear to be based on his attempt to write to Senator Harris and what he perceives as her 

inappropriate response.

As the Court previously advised in its initial screening order, Plaintiff was required to 

revise his complaint to show: (1) the Defendant’s actions that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims; (2) 

what laws or rights violated by each Defendant’s conduct, and (3) how Plaintiff was harmed. 

Plaintiff states that Senator Harris did not prioritize “in order, ‘rescue me, from my M.I.A.

situation’, promptly” as she should. (Id., p.5.) Yet Senator Harris’ letters express concern about 

Plaintiff’s difficulties and offer to help if Plaintiff will send further information about his 

complaints to her San Francisco office. Plaintiff asserts that he responded in writing and “was 

rudely delayed confirmation of results,” yet does not attach any evidence that he sent the 

information that Senator Harris requested, or that she failed to respond. (Id.) The FAC does not 

Case 4:19-cv-00076-YGR Document 14 Filed 04/05/19 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

contain evidence that Defendants’ actions gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims, that Defendants violated 

any laws or rights, or that Plaintiff was in any way harmed. Further, at least one claim must arise 

under federal law. Given that both Plaintiff and Senator Harris are residents of California, 

diversity jurisdiction does not exist. The current claims as drafted fail to provide federal question 

jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the FAC fails to state a claim pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court has already allowed Plaintiff to amend his complaint, and 

multiple extensions of time within which to do so. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that 

this case be reassigned to a district judge and RECOMMENDS that it be dismissed without 

prejudice. 

Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within 

fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 

Civil L.R. 72-3. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2019

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-00076-YGR Document 14 Filed 04/05/19 Page 5 of 5