Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-03016/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-03016-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights

---

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. 

CHARLES LIENINGER, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-3016-GEB-EFB PS 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.1 Her 

declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See 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. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

 1

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

undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:14-cv-03016-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 05/17/16 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.” 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 

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

Case 2:14-cv-03016-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 05/17/16 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

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 consists almost entirely of incoherent rambling and is unintelligible. 

See generally ECF No. 1. Plaintiff purports to allege claims against attorney Charles Lieninger, 

but the precise basis for plaintiff’s claim(s) cannot be discerned from the complaint. Plaintiff 

alleges that she became the victim of “open terror in Sacramento by members American cash 

economy gang, by Supreme Court State of California and Judicial Branch Government USA 

employee Attorney Lieninger.” Id. at 2 (emphasis omitted). She claims that defendant Lieninger 

was “officially assigned attorney government USA to protect member Russian – American 

conspiracy in Sacramento, child abuser terrorist Melnichuk Nelya.” She contends that defendant 

harassed her and invented fraudulent statements that plaintiff had been “kidnapped by members 

American cash economy gang . . . .” Id. at 3. She further alleges that defendant committed 

perjury and fraud inside a court room to increase plaintiff’s stress, anxiety, “blood pressure and 

level of sugar to most dangerous condition which could be fatal to [plaintiff].” 

 Given these allegations, the court is unable to determine whether it has subject matter 

jurisdiction over plaintiff’s intended claim(s). She does not allege the citizenship of the parties, 

nor is it clear how the allegations in the complaint give rise to a federal claim. Thus there is no 

basis upon which either federal question or diversity jurisdiction can be established. Although the 

complaint’s caption page does list a number of criminal statutes codified in Title 18 of the United 

States Code, those criminal statutes do not give rise to civil liability. See Allen v. Gold Country 

Cascino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) (no private right of action for violation of criminal 

statutes). Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff’s claim(s) are premised on defendant’s alleged 

violation of criminal statutes, such a claim(s) fails. 

 The caption page also indicates that this action is based upon “crime against constitution 

USA,” possibly indicating plaintiff’s intention to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state 

Case 2:14-cv-03016-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 05/17/16 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

a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right 

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988). The complaint fails to satisfy both elements. It does not allege that defendant 

Lieninger is a state actor, nor does it specifically identify a constitutional provision that defendant 

allegedly violated. 

 Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed. However, plaintiff is granted leave 

to file an amended complaint to afford her another opportunity to allege a basis for this court’s 

jurisdiction, as well as a cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant and sufficient facts in 

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

(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 cautioned 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. 

Case 2:14-cv-03016-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 05/17/16 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

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 

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

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

DATED: May 17, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-03016-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 05/17/16 Page 5 of 5