Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02136/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02136-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YOHONIA MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT MILLER,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02136-DMR 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Yohonia Martin filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”). On July 2, 2015, the court granted the IFP application and dismissed Plaintiff’s 

complaint with leave to amend. [Docket No. 5.] The court’s order noted that Plaintiff’s complaint 

did not clearly plead a basis for federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction, and that 

Plaintiff’s allegations failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court ordered 

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that addressed these deficiencies by July 23, 2015.

On July 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Opening Brief” in which Plaintiff 

provides additional details about the allegations in the complaint. [Docket No. 6.] Plaintiff 

subsequently filed a document titled “Motion to Amend,” along with five proposed subpoenas,

and “Fact To Be Considered By The Court,” along with three proposed subpoenas. [Docket Nos. 

7, 8.] The court construes the July 9, 2015 “Opening Brief” to be Plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

This document, which is largely incomprehensible, fails to cure the defects noted by the court in 

its order dismissing the complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to plead facts to support 

federal-question jurisdiction. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (“federal 

jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly 

pleaded complaint.”). Plaintiff also does not plead any facts to support diversity jurisdiction, since

Plaintiff and Defendant Robert Miller appear to be citizens of California and Plaintiff does not 

Case 4:15-cv-02136-DMR Document 9 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

allege the value of any damages suffered as a result of Defendant’s alleged actions. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a) (providing that district courts shall have original jurisdiction of civil actions between 

citizens of different states where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000).

The court has also reviewed Plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend” and “Fact To Be Considered 

By The Court.” These documents, which are also difficult to understand, contain some facts 

related to the allegations in the complaint against Defendant Miller. However, they do not contain 

any facts to support this court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this action. In the Motion to 

Amend, Plaintiff briefly mentions the Fourteenth Amendment, stating “Plaintiff is in addition 

attempting to bring to Judicial point for review the possible conversion of defendant and The 

Camonar Group of San Mateo (where the opposite party of the plaintiff has the name Ruby Khan 

bringing plaintiff to the thought of institutional sabotage) to which and whom are again 

responsible and also for placing plaintiff in the suspect classification of the Fourteenth 

Amendment of the Civil Rights Act.” (Mot. to Amend 3.) It is unclear who the “Camonar Group” 

or “Ruby Khan” are, and Plaintiff has not alleged any other facts about them or named them as 

defendants in this action. Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall 

“deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” and “can be violated 

only by conduct that may be fairly characterized as ‘state action.’” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 

Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 924 (1982). Here, the sole defendant named in Plaintiff’s complaint is Robert 

Miller, and Plaintiff makes no allegations that his actions may be characterized as “state action.”

Plaintiff has already been given one opportunity to amend the complaint to allege facts 

supporting this court’s jurisdiction. Having failed to do so, the court dismisses this action and 

directs the Clerk of the Court to close the case. Plaintiff’s requests for the court to issue 

subpoenas are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2015

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-02136-DMR Document 9 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 2