Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01761/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01761-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICOLE JEAN ROGERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

EASTERN INDIANS,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:24-cv-01761-DAD-CSK

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF Nos. 1, 2)

Plaintiff Nicole Jean Rogers is representing herself in this action and seeks leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 2.) 

Plaintiff’s application in support of the IFP request makes the required financial showing. 

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP request.

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 

proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to 

state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a 

defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an 

1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 

Case 2:24-cv-01761-DAD-CSK Document 3 Filed 12/26/24 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

arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In 

reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 

allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 

construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Neitzke, 490 

U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 

(9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).

Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 

F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal). 

However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 

inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 

618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does 

not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough 

facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court 

to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the 

complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be 

cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 

F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).

II. THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff’s Complaint is a 9-page letter titled “Twelve Step Testimony (DA/BDA) 

side notes c/o AA and or NA.” Compl. at 1 (ECF No. 1). The Complaint names 

Defendant “Eastern Indians” and appears to allege Defendant is “invading our business 

& homes[ ] @ AM/PM – Fruitridge Rd.” Id. The Complaint begins with the following: 

Happy birthday if you celebrate a birthday today and 

welcome if you are new. I have a sponsor and my sponsor 

has a sponsor. I am in three programs AA, OA, and DA. Just 

Case 2:24-cv-01761-DAD-CSK Document 3 Filed 12/26/24 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

like I have a problem with substance abuse and overeating. I 

also have a problem with spending and earning problems. 

Id. at 1. The Complaint then proceeds to detail Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family’s 

background and history. See generally Compl. Plaintiff also states her “issues around 

[her] concept with money” and “eight incidents I had very specifically done wrong.” 

Compl. at 2-3. The Complaint concludes with the following:

As it relates to step eleven because I have been through so 

much I have come to rely upon prayer & meditation as being 

the center point of my being in and with everything I do. I 

want to point out that it says "sought" so the act of seeking 

out meaning even if you think you never reach the destination 

of talking to a higher power it is trusting the process and that 

next right action of searching within outside of ourselves. And 

another key component is asking for knowledge for his will for 

us and the power to carry it out. Because I don't always get 

someone talking to me or something necessarily happening 

to or for me when I use prayer and meditation but it is the 

entire thought process clears itself up and I know for me I find 

that I come to think of it, so to speak, all the time when in 

prayer and meditation it is where I get my answers. Having 

said all of this prayer has changed the entire trajectory of my 

life. I highly recommend it! It works. It really does.

Compl. at 8-9. The Complaint also attaches a civil cover sheet that provides as a brief 

description for Plaintiff’s cause of action as “Tantrum didn’t get what he wanted. 

Retaliated.” Compl. at 10. For relief, Plaintiff demands $11 million. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may hear only those cases 

authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 

Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry, and “[f]ederal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, 

‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 

1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 

(1986)); see Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 

F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Without jurisdiction, the district court cannot decide the 

merits of a case or order any relief and must dismiss the case. See Morongo, 858 F.2d 

Case 2:24-cv-01761-DAD-CSK Document 3 Filed 12/26/24 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

at 1380. A federal court’s jurisdiction may be established in one of two ways: actions 

arising under federal law or those between citizens of different states in which the 

alleged damages exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. “Subject-matter jurisdiction 

can never be waived or forfeited,” and “courts are obligated to consider sua sponte” 

subject matter jurisdiction even when not raised by the parties. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 

U.S. 134, 141 (2012).

The Complaint fails to establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See 

Compl. The Complaint states no basis for federal court jurisdiction, and none is 

apparent. No federal cause of action is asserted, and no federal claims are suggested by 

the facts, to the extent the facts are discernible. Therefore, the Court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction based on federal question.

In addition, the Complaint fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. Although Plaintiff 

states the amount in controversy is $11 million, Plaintiff fails to establish that there is 

complete diversity of citizenship. On the face of the Complaint, all parties appear to be 

citizens of California. Compl. at 1. Additionally, Plaintiff checks off in the civil cover sheet 

that both Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of California. Compl. at 10; see Morris v. 

Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Section 1332 requires 

complete diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different 

state than each of the defendants.”). Because there is no diversity of citizenship

established here, the Court finds that it also lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on 

diversity jurisdiction. 

B. Failure to Comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim as 

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In order to give fair notice of the claims 

and the grounds on which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of 

particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v. 

Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court is unable to discern what causes 

of action Plaintiff intends to bring. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading 

Case 2:24-cv-01761-DAD-CSK Document 3 Filed 12/26/24 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, even a pro se litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a 

claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 

(9th Cir. 1984).

The Complaint therefore fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and 

is subject to dismissal. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot determine from the complaint who is 

being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”).

C. Leave to Amend

In considering whether leave to amend should be granted, the Court finds that the 

Complaint consists entirely of allegations with no basis in law and no plausible 

supporting facts. See generally Compl. The Complaint does not contain facts supporting 

any cognizable legal claim against Defendant. The contents of the Complaint are 

sufficiently unintelligible that leave to amend in this case would not be fruitful. In light of 

the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the Complaint’s deficiencies, granting 

leave to amend would be futile. The Complaint should therefore be dismissed without 

leave to amend. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 

1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995).

IV. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to proceed 

in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.

In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Complaint be dismissed without leave 

to amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and where 

amendment would be futile.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should 

be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 

Case 2:24-cv-01761-DAD-CSK Document 3 Filed 12/26/24 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

reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14

days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 

455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: December 23, 2024

4, roge1761.24

Case 2:24-cv-01761-DAD-CSK Document 3 Filed 12/26/24 Page 6 of 6