Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02909/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02909-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

ANTHONY ZAMORA, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2909 TLN DAD PS

ORDER

Plaintiff Anthony Zamora is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to 

the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Pursuant to federal statute, a filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil action 

in federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). In addition, a $50.00 general administrative fee for 

civil cases must also be paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b). The court may authorize the commencement 

of an action “without prepayment of fees . . . by a person who submits an affidavit” showing that 

he is unable to pay such fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff, however, has neither paid the 

required filing fees nor submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. ' 1915(a).

Moreover, jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry that must precede the adjudication of any 

case before the district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of 

Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal courts are courts of limited 

Case 2:14-cv-02909-TLN-DAD Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 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

jurisdiction and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. 

Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37 

(1992). “Federal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, „unless the contrary appears 

affirmatively from the record.‟” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting 

Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 (1986)).

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time during the 

proceedings. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 

1996). A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] has 

subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). It is the 

obligation of the district court “to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.” Grupo Dataflux v. 

Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004). Without jurisdiction, the district court 

cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief. See Morongo, 858 F.2d at 1380.

The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon plaintiff as the party asserting 

jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; see also Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 543 (1974) 

(acknowledging that a claim may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if it is “so insubstantial, 

implausible, . . . or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy 

within the jurisdiction of the District Court”); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946) 

(recognizing that a claim is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction where it is “wholly 

insubstantial and frivolous” and so patently without merit as to justify dismissal for lack of 

jurisdiction ); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that even 

“[a] paid complaint that is „obviously frivolous‟ does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction 

. . . and may be dismissed sua sponte before service of process.”).

In his complaint plaintiff alleges that the named defendants stole various items from him, 

including platinum metal, a cigarette lighter collection, a vehicle and $100,000 in jewelry, 

clothes, telecommunications equipment and home furnishings. (Compl. (Dkt. No. 1) at 1.) The 

complaint indicates that this action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.

/////

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-02909-TLN-DAD Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 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

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that,

[e]very person who, under color of [state law] ... subjects, or causes 

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the 

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an 

action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

In order to state a cognizable claim under § 1983 the plaintiff must allege facts 

demonstrating that he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United 

States and that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West 

v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). It is the plaintiff‟s burden in bringing a claim under § 1983 to 

allege, and ultimately establish, that the named defendants were acting under color of state law

when they deprived him of a federal right. Lee v. Katz, 276 F.3d 550, 553-54 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Here, there are no allegations in plaintiff‟s complaint suggesting that the named defendants were 

at any time acting under color of state law.

Moreover, the minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:

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 . . . , (2) a short and 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.

FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a).

Here, plaintiff‟s complaint fails to contain a short and plain statement of a claim showing

that he is entitled to relief. Instead, the complaint merely alleges in a vague and conclusory 

manner that the named defendant stole the identified items from plaintiff.

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a 

complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff‟s claims and must allege facts that 

state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v. 

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “A pleading that offers „labels 

and conclusions‟ or „a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.‟ Nor 

does a complaint suffice if it tenders „naked assertions‟ devoid of „further factual 

enhancements.‟” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 

557. A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the 

Case 2:14-cv-02909-TLN-DAD Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 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

defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff‟s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649.

Accordingly, plaintiff‟s complaint will be dismissed due to the lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Plaintiff, however, he will be granted leave to file an amended complaint that 

establishes subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that if he elects to file an

amended complaint “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a 

complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. 

“While legal conclusions can provide the complaint‟s framework, they must be supported by 

factual allegations.” Id. at 679. Those facts must be sufficient to push the claims “across the line 

from conceivable to plausible[.]” Id. at 680 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

Plaintiff is also reminded that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an 

amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended complaint be complete 

in itself without reference to prior pleadings. The amended complaint will supersede the original 

complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, in an amended complaint, 

just as if it were the initial complaint filed in the case, each defendant must be listed in the caption 

and identified in the body of the complaint, and each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Any amended complaint which plaintiff may elect to file 

must also include concise but complete factual allegations describing the conduct and events 

which underlie plaintiff‟s claims.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The complaint filed December 15, 2014 (Dkt. No. 1) is dismissed with leave to 

amend.

2. Within twenty-eight days from the date of this order, an amended complaint 

shall be filed that cures the defects noted in this order and complies with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice.1 The amended complaint must bear the case 

number assigned to this action and must be titled “Amended Complaint.”

 

1

 Alternatively, plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 

41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:14-cv-02909-TLN-DAD Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 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

3. Within fourteen days of filing an amended complaint, plaintiff shall either pay 

the required filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis

4. Failure to comply with this order in a timely manner may result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: April 30, 2015

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.pro se\zamora2909.dism.lta.ord.docx

Case 2:14-cv-02909-TLN-DAD Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 5