Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00639/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00639-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARJIE JEAN HAYMON, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SBC, et.al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:07cv0639 AWI DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM

OBJECTIONS DUE AUGUST 15, 2007

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action on April 27, 2007. On

May 10, 2007, the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted. On July 11, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that she

was injured by a loose SBC cable while she was walking down the street. Plaintiff contends the

cable was attached to a PG&E pole. Plaintiff names SBC, AT&T Corporation and PG&E as

defendants and requests monetary damages.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the

complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof

if the court determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state

Case 1:07-cv-00639-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 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

2

a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be

cured by amendment.

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, 

cross-claim, or third-party claim, 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

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a

demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of

several different types may be demanded.

As in her original complaint, in the amended complaint, plaintiff has failed to state the

grounds for jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Rule 8. The Federal Courts are courts of

limited jurisdiction. Unlike the state courts, there is no inherent or general subject matter

jurisdiction. The Federal Court can only adjudicate those cases that the Constitution and

Congress authorize them to adjudicate which are essentially those involving diversity of

citizenship, or a federal question, or to which the United States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian

Life Ins. Co. Of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994). Plaintiff has not alleged any basis for Federal

Court jurisdiction in the present case. Plaintiff has not alleged the deprivation of a federal

constitutional or statutory right. Nor has plaintiff alleged the citizenship of any of the parties in

the complaint. 

For the above reasons, the Court recommends that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction. The Court does not recommend that leave to amend be granted as plaintiff

was already given the opportunity to amend the complaint and was unable to cure the

deficiencies. 

Case 1:07-cv-00639-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 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

3

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District

of California. On or before August 15, 2007, plaintiff may file written objections with the court

and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed

within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The

Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00639-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 07/23/07 Page 3 of 3