Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03131/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03131-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

CANDY STEWART,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv3131-GPC(RBB)

ORDER:

1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

(2) DISMISSING SUA SPONTE

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM.

[Dkt. No. 2]

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

CHARLES MONTGOMERY,

Defendants.

On December 20, 2013, Plaintiff Candy Stewart, proceeding pro se,

commenced this action against Defendants County of San Diego and Charles 1

Montgomery (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff concurrently filed a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Dkt. No. 2.) For the

following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP, but sua

sponte DISMISSES the suit for lack of jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

Plaintiff moves to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Section 1915(a)

allows a court to authorize a lawsuit’s commencement without payment of the filing

Plaintiff does not present the Court with a formal complaint but commencesthis 1

action in the form of a letter to the Court Clerk. The Court liberally construesthe letter

as a complaint. See Casavantes v. California State University, 732 F.2d 1441, 1442

(9th Cir. 1984).

- 1 - [13cv3131-GPB(RBB)]

Case 3:13-cv-03131-GPC-RBB Document 3 Filed 01/23/14 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

fee if the plaintiff submits an affidavit demonstrating his or her inability to pay the

filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Such affidavit must include a complete statement of

the plaintiff's assets. Id. However, an IFP action is subject to dismissal if the court

determines that the complaint is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). When a plaintiff moves to

proceed IFP, the court first “grants or denies IFP status based on the plaintiff's

financial resources alone and then independently determines whether to dismiss the

complaint” pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 n.5

(9th Cir. 1984). 

Here, Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit and application in support of

Plaintiff’s IFP motion indicating Plaintiff is unemployed, receives veterans benefits

of $80.00 per month, has no checking or savings accounts, and owns no vehicle,

real property, or other assets. Plaintiff states that her last employment ended in

January 2011. Based on these facts, the Court finds that Plaintiff meets the section

1915(a) requirements and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP.

II. Sua Sponte Dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

Notwithstanding IFP status, the Court must subject each civil action

commenced pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to mandatory screening and order the

sua sponte dismissal of any case it finds “frivolous, malicious, failing to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a

defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl,

254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir.

2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the

court to sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state a claim). 

“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept

as true all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff.” Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000);

- 2 - [13cv3131-GPB(RBB)]

Case 3:13-cv-03131-GPC-RBB Document 3 Filed 01/23/14 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

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that 1915(e)(2)

“parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). “A plaintiff

must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was

personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194. 

Where a plaintiff appears in propria persona in a civil rights case, the Court must

construe the pleadings liberally and afford plaintiff any benefit of the doubt. See

Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988); Bretz

v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027, n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). In giving liberal

interpretation to a pro se civil rights complaint, the Court may not, however, supply

essential elements of a claim that were not initially pled. “Vague and conclusory

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient to

withstand a motion to dismiss.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Nevertheless, the Court must give a pro se litigant

leave to amend his complaint unless it is “absolutely clear that the deficiencies of

the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446,

1447 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, before a pro se civil rights complaint may be dismissed,

the court must provide the plaintiff with a statement of the complaint’s deficiencies. 

Karim-Panahi, 893 F.2d at 623-24.

Here, Plaintiff alleges “civil rights violations, slander, libel and emotional

distress” when Defendant Charles Montgomery went to her child’s school to

question her child without Plaintiff’s permission. (Dkt. No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff further

alleges that Defendant Montgomery followed Plaintiff home, leaving business cards

at her door. (Id.) First, it is not clear which civil rights Plaintiff alleges were

violated. Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to plead the facts necessary to state a claim for

civil rights violations, slander, libel, or emotional distress. For example, under

California law, intentional infliction of emotional distress requires a showing of:

“(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing,

or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the

- 3 - [13cv3131-GPB(RBB)]

Case 3:13-cv-03131-GPC-RBB Document 3 Filed 01/23/14 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

plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and

proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous

conduct.” Christensen v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 868 (1991). Plaintiff’s

Complaint fails to allege any facts to show that Defendants’ conduct caused

Plaintiff emotional distress. 

In addition, Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Unlike state

courts, they have no ‘inherent’ or ‘general’ subject matter jurisdiction. They can

adjudicate only those cases which the Constitution and Congress authorize them to

adjudicate, i.e. those involving diversity of citizenship, a federal question, or to

which the United States is a party. See Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545

(1989). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions and

the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.

See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994). Plaintiff fails to state

a basis for federal court jurisdiction over her case. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to

proceed IFP and sua sponte DISMISSES without prejudice the Complaint for failure

to state a claim. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff 45 days from the date this Order is

stamped “Filed” to file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies of

pleading set forth above. Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete in itself

without reference to the superseded pleading in accordance with Southern District

of California Local Civil Rule 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not realleged in the amended complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 22, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 4 - [13cv3131-GPB(RBB)]

Case 3:13-cv-03131-GPC-RBB Document 3 Filed 01/23/14 Page 4 of 4