Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00017/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00017-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAMARA L. BOS, No. 2:15-CV-0017-JAM-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

UNITED STATES SMALL

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the

court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1). 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court is also required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these screening

provisions, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B) and

1

Case 2:15-cv-00017-JAM-CMK Document 4 Filed 02/03/16 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

1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), this court

must dismiss an action if the court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Because

plaintiff, who is not a prisoner, has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court

will screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to Rule 12(h), the court will also

consider as a threshold matter whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction.

In this case, plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) United States Small

Business Administration; (2) Christie Lovell; (3) Carla Donaldson; and (4) Sonja Hubbard. 

Plaintiff’s allegations relate to a micro loan made to plaintiff’s business, Tamara Lee Originals,

Inc., and guaranteed by defendant United States Small Business Administration. Plaintiff

attaches to her complaint an August 28, 2014, letter from John A. Miller, the Director, Office of

Financial Program Operations, for defendant United States Small Business Administration, to

Representative Doug LaMalfa, which outlines the following history:

Thank you for your inquiry of behalf of Ms. Tamara Bos regarding a U.S.

Small Business Administration (SBA) guaranteed business loan made to

her company, Tamara Lee Originals, Inc. (TLO). 

According to SBA loan records, on April 6, 2005, SBA approved a $5,000

micro loan to TLO. The loan became delinquent on June 1, 2013. After

numerous attempts to contact Ms. Bos to offer repayment arrangements,

the loan remained delinquent. On August 30, 2013, SBA charged off this

loan. On September 1, 2013, the Agency notified Ms. Bos of a pending

referral to the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) for offsets and

collection. Since Ms. Bos did not make any arrangements to repay or

workout this debt, as mandated by the Dept Collection Improvement Act

of 1996, SBA referred the loan to Treasury for further collection efforts on

November 3, 2013. Treasury has assumed collection responsibilities and

SBA no longer services this loan. 

Based on Ms. Bos’ communications with your office, she requests

assistance with securing a new reduction of her monthly Social Security

offset. She could also like a refund of the full offset taken in March 2014. 

On March 6, 2014, Ms. Bos contacted the SBA Birmingham Disaster Loan

Servicing Center to advise of the hardship caused by the 14% offset

approved by Congress. The amount of offset taken from Ms. Bos in

March was $202.20. We reviewed the financial documentation she

submitted and the Agency has already agreed to reduce the monthly offset

to $50.00. This reduction is approximately 4%. Please be advised that the

Agency’s standard for offset is normally 15%. The reduced offset began

in April 2014. The SBA cannot reduce the amount any lower. The full

2

Case 2:15-cv-00017-JAM-CMK Document 4 Filed 02/03/16 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

offset previously taken in March 2014 will not be refunded, as this debt is

in default. . . .

In her complaint, plaintiff states as follows under the heading “Claims for Relief”:

United States Small Business Administration caused me to suffer

EXTENSIVE EMOTIONAL, FINANCIAL, PHYSICAL, DISTRESS. I

am suffering each month when the Social Security Direct Deposit goes

into my bank account. The United States Small Business Administration

was aware of my working with Robert H. of the United States Treasury

Department. I provided Robert H. my monthly budget, my bills, all the

paperwork he asked for. An ADMINISTRATIVE RESOLUTION

APPROVAL WAS ISSUED TO ME BY THE UNITED STATES

TREASURY DEPARTMENT.

I think, the United States Small Business Administration knew of my U.S.

Treasury file, and knowingly hid this fact from me. I feel, that I caught

Christie Lovell, Carla Donaldson, lying to me on the phone. And, I

believe, Sonja Hubbard covered up Christie Lovell’s and Carla

Donaldson’s actions. 

(Emphasis in original).

As currently set forth, plaintiff’s complaint is defective because plaintiff has not

identified any violation of federal law which would be cognizable in this court. In particular,

plaintiff has not referenced any federal statute or constitutional provision in support of her

complaint. Because it is possible that this deficiency may be cured by amending the complaint,

plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith,

203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an

amended complaint within the time provided in this order may result in dismissal of the entire

action. See Local Rule 110. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

3

Case 2:15-cv-00017-JAM-CMK Document 4 Filed 02/03/16 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend; and

2. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of

this order. 

DATED: February 3, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:15-cv-00017-JAM-CMK Document 4 Filed 02/03/16 Page 4 of 4