Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00931/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00931-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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 

KURT KAYWOOD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DAVID KILGORE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-00931-DJC-SCR 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. This matter was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 

I. SCREENING 

 A. Legal Standard 

The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if 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). In 

screening a complaint the Court is guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rulespractice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 

Case 2:24-cv-00931-DJC-SCR Document 4 Filed 09/18/24 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 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 

plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 

court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 

to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 

sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 

the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 

Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an 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 will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 

are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. 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). 

The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 

states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 

must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 

less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 

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 

Case 2:24-cv-00931-DJC-SCR Document 4 Filed 09/18/24 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 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro 

se litigant should be given leave to amend the complaint, and some notice of the deficiencies, 

unless it is clear the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 

F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 

B. The Complaint 

 Plaintiff’s Complaint is 133-pages long and is a mishmash of various documents. ECF 

No. 1. It is titled as a “notice of request for removal,” and the first six pages are largely blank. At 

page seven, Plaintiff requests removal of a family court matter to the Northern District of 

California. The Complaint is convoluted and contains frivolous assertions such as there have been 

no courts or judges in America since 1789. ECF No. 1 at 20. Some of the documents submitted as 

the Complaint pertain to child support. Plaintiff has also attached various state court documents 

and receipts. 

C. Analysis 

 The Complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of the basis for federal 

jurisdiction, nor does it contain a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to 

relief. There is no apparent basis for federal jurisdiction in the documents that Plaintiff submitted 

as his Complaint. 

 The Complaint thus does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1)-(2) as it 

does not contain a “short and plain” statement setting forth the grounds for federal jurisdiction, or 

a short and plaint statement showing plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. The exact nature of what 

happened to Plaintiff is unclear from the Complaint. Plaintiff names three Defendants on page 

one, but is unclear what they allegedly did or what relief Plaintiff seeks. The court cannot tell 

from examining the complaint what legal wrong was done to Plaintiff, by whom and when, or 

how any alleged harm is connected to the relief Plaintiff seeks. 

Accordingly, the complaint does not establish this court’s jurisdiction, does not comply 

with Rule 8, and fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Rather than recommending 

dismissal of the action, the undersigned will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the 

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-00931-DJC-SCR Document 4 Filed 09/18/24 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 

complaint to allege a proper basis for jurisdiction and facts supporting a cognizable cause of 

action. 

II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 

 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the Complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts 

establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction. In addition, it must contain a short and plain 

statement of Plaintiff’s claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially 

numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each 

paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the 

complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where 

possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their 

complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 

4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is 

being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 

facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended complaint 

must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ which Rule 

8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not require the court 

and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for what.” Id. at 1179. 

 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s 

amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 

reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline 

Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint 

supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & 

Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged. 

Case 2:24-cv-00931-DJC-SCR Document 4 Filed 09/18/24 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 

 Plaintiff should bear in mind when amending the complaint that he must assert a basis for 

federal jurisdiction. It appears that Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks to challenge a state court family 

matter, perhaps an award of child support. If that is what Plaintiff asserts, then this court would 

lack jurisdiction. Federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to review final state court 

judgments. See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine 

prevents “a party losing in state court ... from seeking what in substance would be appellate 

review of the state judgment in a United States district court.” Henrich v. Valley View Dev., 474 

F.3d 609, 611 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Ignacio v. Judges of U.S. Court of Appeals, 453 F.3d 

1160, 1165-66 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal “because the complaint is nothing more than 

another attack on the California superior court’s determination in [the plaintiff’s] domestic 

case.”). Family law and child support proceedings are traditional matters of state law for 

determination in state court, and Plaintiff has not to this point alleged any basis for federal 

jurisdiction. See Scharfenberger v. Jacques, 2020 WL 589421 (E.D. Cal. Fed. 6, 2020) (“The 

court is without jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims under the ‘domestic relations’ exception to 

federal jurisdiction because they concern child support payments, which are exclusively matters 

of state law.”) (citing Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 702-04 (1992)). 

 Plaintiff should also consider whether he has pursued this action in the proper venue. 

Plaintiff’s address is in Oakland, which is in the Northern District of California. There is at least 

one statement in the documents submitted at ECF No. 1 that appears to show that Plaintiff wants 

the case to be in the Northern District of California. ECF No. 1 at 7. The allegations of the 

Complaint are too sparse to ascertain if venue is proper. Plaintiff should consult 28 U.S.C. § 

1391 to ascertain the proper venue. 

 In conclusion, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 and fails to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has submitted a mishmash of documents that appear to 

have something to do with child support proceedings in state court. It appears that federal subject 

matter jurisdiction is lacking. However, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and the allegations 

are unclear, the court will allow an opportunity to amend. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 

1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[a] district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to 

Case 2:24-cv-00931-DJC-SCR Document 4 Filed 09/18/24 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 

amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 

amendment.”). 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 

2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint 

that addresses the defects set forth above. The amended complaint must include a 

sufficient jurisdictional statement and comply with Rule 8. If Plaintiff fails to timely 

comply with this order, the undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed. 

3. Alternatively, if Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action Plaintiff may file a notice 

of voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 15, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-00931-DJC-SCR Document 4 Filed 09/18/24 Page 6 of 6