Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00526/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00526-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN L. McCARTY, CASE NO. CV F 06-0526 OWW LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

vs.

ROBERT M. GRGURIC,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff John L. McCarty (“plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis and on May 2,

2006, filed his complaint against Florida attorney Robert M. Grguric to attempt to allege state law tort

claims, including legal malpractice. The complaint alleges that in November 1998, plaintiff and LaDan

McCarty (“Ms. McCarty”) retained Mr. Grguric and plaintiff and Ms. McCarty each paid half for a

“simple dissolution.” The complaint alleges that Mr. Grguric “created an ex parte alliance with LaDan

McCarty in Florida, which denied Plaintiff notice and traditional notions of fair play and substantial

justice.” The complaint further alleges that Mr. Grguric lied to and manipulated Florida courts “by

illegally taking Plaintiff’s disability income.”

DISCUSSION

Standards For Screening

“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). . . . Such dismissal

Case 1:06-cv-00526-OWW -LJO Document 5 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 6
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

may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Service,

Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9 Cir. 1987); see Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-362 (9 Cir. 1981). Sua th th

sponte dismissal may be made before process is served on defendants. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 324 (1989) (dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) are often made sua sponte); Franklin v. Murphy,

745 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9 Cir. 1984) (court may dismiss frivolous in forma pauperis action sua sponte th

prior to service of process on defendants). 

Since plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, this Court, notwithstanding any filing fee that may

have been paid, shall dismiss a case at any time iftheCourt determines the action is frivolous, malicious,

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); 2 Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide:

Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2006) Attacking the Pleadings, para. 9:226.1, pp. 9-69. A court

need not accept as true factual allegations in in forma pauperis complaints and may reject “completely

baseless” allegations, including those which are “fanciful,” “fantastic” or “delusional.” Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-1228 (9 Cir. 1984). A th

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a fanciful factual allegation. Neitzke, 490

U.S. at 324. A federal court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably

meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

The test for maliciousness is a subjective one and requires the court to “determine the . . . good

faith of the applicant.” Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915); see Wright v.

Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968, n. 1 (11 Cir. 1986). A lack of good faith is found most commonly in th

repetitive suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of cost-free filing to file a multiplicity

of suits. A complaint is malicious if it suggests an intent to vex defendants or abuse the judicial process

by relitigating claims decided in prior cases. Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981);

Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 209 (10 Cir. 1981); Ballentine v. Crawford, 563 F.Supp. 627, 628-629 th

(N.D. Ind. 1983); cf. Glick v. Gutbrod, 782 F.2d 754, 757 (7 Cir. 1986) (court has inherent power to

th

dismiss case demonstrating “clear pattern of abuse of judicial process”). A lack of good faith or malice

Case 1:06-cv-00526-OWW -LJO Document 5 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 6
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

also can be inferred from a complaint containing untrue material allegations of fact or false statements

made with intent to deceive the court. See Horsey v. Asher, 741 F.2d 209, 212 (8 Cir. 1984). th

A complaint, or portion thereof, may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond

doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to

relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,

45-46 (1957)); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9 Cir. th

1981). “[W]hen a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the reception of any

evidence either by affidavit or admissions, its task is necessarily a limited one. The issue is not whether

a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support

claims.” Scheurer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1688 (1974); Gilligan v. Jamco Development

Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9 Cir. 1997). th

The face of the complaint reflects deficiencies to prevent plaintiff from offering evidence to

support claims raised in the complaint.

Jurisdictional Deficiencies

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject matter

jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases in which the United States Constitution and

Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 114 S.Ct.

1673, 1677 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 2008 (1989). Federal courts

are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions, and the burden to establish the contrary rests

upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; 114 S.Ct. at 1677. Lack of subject

matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the court sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v.

Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-595 (9 Cir. 1996). “Nothing is to be more th

jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what its power rests upon. Without

jurisdiction it is nothing.” In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9 Cir. 1988). th

F.R.Civ.P. 8 establishes general pleading rules and provides in pertinent part:

(a) Claims for Relief. A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall

contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds

of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader

Case 1:06-cv-00526-OWW -LJO Document 5 Filed 05/03/06 Page 3 of 6
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

seeks.

. . .

(e) Pleading to be Concise and Direct; Consistency. 

(1) Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise and direct.

The complaint cites several statutes regarding jurisdiction but fails to allege facts to support

jurisdiction. Although diversity jurisdiction may seem available under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the complaint

fails to allege facts to support personal jurisdiction over Mr. Grguric in that the complaint refers to

alleged wrongs in Florida where Mr. Grguric practices law. In personam jurisdiction is required when

a judgment is sought as to a defendant personally. Personal jurisdiction is an essential element of a

court’s jurisdiction and without it, a court “is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.” Ruhrgas AG

v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 1572 (1999). “Because a court without jurisdiction

over the parties cannot render a valid judgement, [the court] must address Defendants’ personal

jurisdiction argument before reaching the merits of the case.” OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of

Canada, 149 F.3d 1086, 1090 (10 Cir. 1998). th

Federal courts lack nationwide personal jurisdiction and have no broader power over persons

outside the state in which they sit than do local state courts. Omni Capital Int’l v. Rudolph Wolff & Co.,

Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 104-105, 108 S.Ct. 404, 410 (1987); see F.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(A).

The complaint fails to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and in personam

jurisdiction over Mr. Grguric. In the absence of subject matter and in personam jurisdiction, this Court

is unable to proceed on plaintiff’s claims.

Pleading Deficiencies

A pleading may not simply allege a wrong has been committed and demand relief. The

underlying requirement is that a pleading give “fair notice” of the claim being asserted and the “grounds

upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48, 78 S.Ct. 99, 103 (1957); Yamaguchi v.

United States Department of Air Force, 109 F.3d 1475, 1481 (9 Cir. 1997). Although a complaint need th

not outline all elements of a claim, “[i]t must be possible . . . for an inference to be drawn that these

elements exist.” Walker v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5 Cir. 1990); Lewis th

v. ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-406 (6 Cir. 1998). Despite the flexible pleading th

Case 1:06-cv-00526-OWW -LJO Document 5 Filed 05/03/06 Page 4 of 6
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

policy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements

of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9 Cir. th

1984). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt facts which defendant

engaged in to support plaintiff’s claim. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649. 

The complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to identify grounds for relief against Mr. Grguric.

The complaint’s allegations appear fanciful by claiming that plaintiff and his apparent former spouse

retained Mr. Grguric to handle their dissolution despite an obvious conflict of interest to do so. The

complaint fails to provide Mr. Grguric fair notice and to state facts to support elements of particular

claims. 

The gist of the complaint’s allegations appearsto be legal malpractice. Plaintiff appears to allege

various tort theories to avoid California’s one-year limitations period for legal malpractice. See Cal.

Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6(a). As a leading treatise notes: “Because alternative theories often are based

on the same factual allegations as a negligence cause of action, such claims frequently are treated as

redundant and are disregarded.” 1 Mallen & Smith, Legal Malpractice (2005) Theory of Liability –

Common Law, § 8.1, pp. 908-909. Plaintiff’s claims are susceptible to limitations defenses, and the

complaint appears to make vague allegations to avoid them.

Malice

This Court is concerned that plaintiff has brought this action in absence of good faith and

attempts to take advantage of cost-free filing to vex Mr. Grguric. Such attempt to vex Mr. Grguric

provides further grounds to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in that plaintiff brought another recent action

to address his disability income and which this Court dismissed. See John L. McCarty v. Jacqueline

Mellon, Case No. CV F 05-1650 REC LJO.

Attempt At Amendment

Plaintiff is admonished that this Court’s Local Rule 15-220 requires an amended complaint to

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint

supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9 Cir. 1967). After the filing th

of an amended complaint, the original pleadings serves no further function. Thus, in an amended

complaint, each claim and involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

Case 1:06-cv-00526-OWW -LJO Document 5 Filed 05/03/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court:

1. DISMISSES plaintiffs’ complaint, filed May 2, 2006, with leave to amend; and

2. ORDERS plaintiffs, no later than May 17, 2006, to file an amended complaint in

compliance with this order.

This Court admonishes plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint in compliance

with this order will result in recommendation to dismiss this action for failure to obey a court

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00526-OWW -LJO Document 5 Filed 05/03/06 Page 6 of 6