Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01100/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01100-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Candace Smith seeks to hold Seyi Ayodale liable for “personal injury attempted murder” under 

federal law. (See Doc. 6 at 3–6; Doc. 1-1.) Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the 

magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Docs. 5, 9.)

Upon screening the initial complaint (Doc. 1), the magistrate found Plaintiff failed to state any 

cognizable claims and granted leave to file an amended complaint curing the pleading deficiencies 

identified in the order. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint (Doc. 6), which the 

magistrate judge screened. (Doc. 9.)

The magistrate judge noted that despite the explicit recitation of the deficiencies of the initial 

complaint, Plaintiff failed to plead any cognizable claims sufficient to state a basis for federal 

jurisdiction. Specifically, the magistrate judge found that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against a private party and, to the extent Plaintiff attempted to bring a 

claim for “attempted murder” or “robbery,” “such criminal claims may not be pursued in a civil 

CANDACE SMITH,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SEYI AYODALE,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:24-cv-1100 JLT SKO

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS CASE 

BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO CHANGE 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DIRECTING THE 

CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE

(Docs. 9 & 11)

Case 1:24-cv-01100-JLT-SKO Document 12 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 3
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

lawsuit.” (Doc. 9 at 5–6.) In addition, although not alleged as a basis for jurisdiction in the amended 

complaint, the magistrate judge found there is not complete diversity between the parties, because “[i]n 

the Civil Cover Sheet, Plaintiff indicates she and Defendant are both citizens of Fresno, which is in the 

State of California.” (Id. at 6, citing Doc. 1-1.) Thus, the magistrate judge concluded the Court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction over the action. (Id.) The magistrate judge 

determined that amendment would be futile because “Plaintiff has repeatedly demonstrated that she is 

unable to plead facts invoking the Court’s jurisdiction.” (Id.) Consequently, the magistrate judge 

recommended the action be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. (Id.)

On December 3, 2024, Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 

(Doc. 10.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has “poisoned” the community because she herself as the 

plaintiff, stole Plaintiff’s child from a hospital in 2005, committed murder, and pretended to be “a 

mistress to a married cop.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff contends Defendant also engaged in harassment by 

“sending pornographic materials to [Plaintiff] & married men.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff requests the Court 

consider this behavior in the matter. (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff filed a “Request to Change Magistrate” 

asserting that both the assigned district judge and magistrate judge are being biased. (Doc. 11 at 1.)

Plaintiff does not address the specific findings of the magistrate judge related to her failure to 

allege cognizable a cause of action under federal law. Although Plaintiff alleges several violations of 

criminal law, she does not identify any provision that would invoke this Court’s subject matter 

jurisdiction. Criminal statutes do not provide basis for a civil lawsuit such as Plaintiff attempts to bring 

in the matter pending before the Court. See, e.g., Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 

(9th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal of a plaintiff’s claims because “criminal statutes that do not give 

rise to civil liability”); Pawelek v. Paramount Studios Corp., 571 F.Supp. 1082, 1083 (N.D. Ill. 1983) 

(no private cause of action inherent in federal criminal statutes defining civil rights violations). Rather 

when a criminal statute is violated, the question of whether to prosecute is a matter of a prosecutor’s

discretion and is not a matter for the Court. See United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979)

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the case. Having 

carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes the Findings and 

Recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. Furthermore, the Court denies 

Case 1:24-cv-01100-JLT-SKO Document 12 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiff’s “Request to Change Magistrate” because Plaintiff fails to allege facts that would support the 

contention that either the magistrate judge or district judge exhibited bias and prejudice towards 

Plaintiff. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); Jensen v. Santa Clara County, 32 Fed. 

App’x 203, 206 (9th Cir. 2002) (mere allegations of a plaintiff that trial judge had a bias was not 

enough to support judge’s recusal where plaintiff’s complaint had no support in the record); Saddozai v. 

Carwithen, 2022 WL 6584457, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2022) (“Plaintiff’s assertions regarding 

personal bias and prejudice are simply conclusory. The Court does not have nor has ever expressed any 

‘discriminatory animus’ against Plaintiff based on his poverty, imprisonment, or race, and no improper 

remarks have ever been made showing lack of impartiality”). Indeed, the district judge has not taken 

any action in this matter until performing this de novo review of the Findings and Recommendations. 

To the extent Plaintiff’s assertion of bias is based upon rulings of the Court—such as the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation of dismissal—such “is not an adequate basis for recusal.” Leslie v. Grupo 

ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1148 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (“Adverse findings do not equate to bias.”) Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated November 8, 2024 (Doc. 9) are ADOPTED 

in full.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

3. Leave to amend is DENIED as futile.

4. Plaintiff’s “Request to Change Magistrate” (Doc. 11) is DENIED.

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-01100-JLT-SKO Document 12 Filed 12/23/24 Page 3 of 3