Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00784/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00784-0/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 

DIANA LEE WALLACH LORRETZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-784-GEB-EFB PS 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint and an application to proceed with this 

case in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. ECF Nos. 1, 2. As discussed below, she 

satisfies the financial requirements for proceeding in forma pauperis, but her complaint must be 

dismissed without leave to amend.1

 Plaintiff’s application makes the financial showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and 

(2). See ECF Nos. 2, 9. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, that does not end the inquiry. The court must screen her complaint 

to determine whether it is frivolous or fails to state a claim. 

 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 

 1

 Because the complaint must be dismissed, plaintiff’s request for an immediate hearing, 

ECF No. 5, is denied as moot. 

Case 2:16-cv-00784-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (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 2:16-cv-00784-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 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 

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). 

 Here, review of plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 8) reveals that it must be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim.2 Her amended complaint consists of disjointed and 

unintelligible allegations that fail to support, or even suggest, a cognizable legal claim. Even the 

intended defendant(s) are unclear. Although the caption page identifies the United States as the 

sole defendant, the text of the complaint states that all defendants are “unnamed at this time.” 

ECF No. 8 at 2. The complaint alleges that defendant “organized piracy” and kidnapping in 

relation to a civil lawsuit. Id. at 5. Plaintiff alleges that she “said don’t build St. Lawrence 

Seaway nor Nuclear Power.” Id. She further alleges that defendant’s fraud created waste and 

abuse, as well as “too many hoax court cases.” Id. She also alleges that she refuses to be tortured 

“even if it’s drugs or water boarding or electricity or laser burns . . . .” Id. 

 The amended complaint, however, does not identify any specific causes of action. Nor 

does it include any coherent factual allegations which could plausibly support a cognizable claim 

for relief. Accordingly, it is recommended that the amended complaint be dismissed pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). Further, it is clear that another amendment cannot cure the deficiencies.3

 

Therefore, it is recommended that the dismissal be without further leave to amend. See Noll v. 

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (While the court ordinarily would permit a pro se 

///// 

 2

 Before the court had an opportunity to screen plaintiff’s original complaint, she filed a 

first amended complaint. Plaintiff was permitted to amend her complaint without leave of court. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (permitting a plaintiff to amend her complaint once as a matter of course 

within 21 days after the filing of a responsive pleading). 

 3

 Plaintiff’s original complaint was plagued with similar incoherent rambling. See 

generally ECF No. 1. 

Case 2:16-cv-00784-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 06/01/16 Page 3 of 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 

4

plaintiff to amend, leave to amend should not be granted where it appears amendment would be 

futile).4 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 9) is granted. 

 2. Plaintiff’s request for an immediate hearing (ECF No. 5) is denied. 

 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend; 

 2. All other pending motions be denied as moot; and 

 3. The Clerk be directed to close the case. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: June 1, 2016. 

 4

 On May 17, 2016, plaintiff filed a pleading entitled “Motion to Transfer to Criminal 

Case Status at Status Conference.” ECF No. 10. The pleading is incomprehensible. In light of 

the recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice, that motion is moot. 

Case 2:16-cv-00784-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 06/01/16 Page 4 of 4