Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01316/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01316-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CANDACE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNIVERSITY INN HOTEL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01316-EPG

ORDER TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE

AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE 

DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 8 OF 

THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE AND FOR LACK OF SUBJECTMATTER JURISDICTION

(ECF No. 1)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS

Plaintiff Candace Smith (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on October 28, 2024, 

alleges various claims against University Inn Hotel, Ramada Inn Hotel, Picadilly Inn Hotel, 

Starbucks, Extended Stay Hotel, and Planet Fitness. 

Plaintiff’s complaint is now before the Court for screening. Upon review, the Court finds

that Plaintiff’s complaint violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and the Court lacks 

Case 1:24-cv-01316-KES-EPG Document 7 Filed 12/13/24 Page 1 of 7
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

subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. 

Additionally, as further explained below, Plaintiff frequently makes filings with the Court 

that are often dismissed upon repeated identifications of deficiencies in filings that are not 

corrected. Accordingly, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice 

and without granting leave to amend.

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court screens the complaint under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 3). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may 

have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action 

or appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id.

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting 

this plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are 

not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 

681 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a plaintiff’s 

legal conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal 

pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that 

pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal).

II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

In the statement of claim, Plaintiff’s complaint states:

Not providing [illegible] & falsly calling cops

upon such coondrated activities of purposely harm a ill person, putting posion, 

drugs, cocaine & posions in bed sheets, Food, and drink going in room w/o out 

permission 

Case 1:24-cv-01316-KES-EPG Document 7 Filed 12/13/24 Page 2 of 7
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

video filmy & recording w/o permson

Starbucks drugged drinked to sleep w/o plaintiff sexual harassment & the Like 

Planet Fitness video & Invasion of privacy sexual Harassment. Person Injury

(ECF No. 1 at 5). Additionally, the Civil Cover Sheet accompanying Plaintiff’s complaint states 

“Tort actions to purposely cause death & Injury.” (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff asks for punitive and 

monetary damages. (ECF No. 1 at 6).

III. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

A. Rule 8(a)

As set forth above, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint 

to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although a complaint is not required to include detailed factual 

allegations, it must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). It must 

also contain “sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the 

opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally participated in the 

deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77.

Plaintiff’s complaint is not a short and plain statement of her claims. Plaintiff sets forth no 

facts in her complaint to support her allegations, exclusively relying on conclusory statements, 

and it is unclear what Plaintiff is alleging and against whom. Accordingly, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a). 

B. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

A court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over a case “refers to a tribunal’s power to hear [the]

case, a matter that can never be forfeited or waived.” Union Pac. R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive 

Engineers & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent. Region, 558 U.S. 67, 81 (2009)

(quotation marks and citation omitted). “Moreover, courts . . . have an independent obligation to 

determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any 

party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(h)(3), “[i]f the [C]ourt determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the 

Case 1:24-cv-01316-KES-EPG Document 7 Filed 12/13/24 Page 3 of 7
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

[C]ourt must dismiss the action.” 

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized 

by Constitution and statute . . . . It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited 

jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting 

jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citation 

omitted). There are two main bases to establish subject-matter jurisdiction in a case.

First, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that “district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil 

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Under the ‘“wellpleaded complaint rule’ . . . federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented 

on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 

386, 392 (1987). Second, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides that “district courts shall have original 

jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and involves “citizens of different States.” The 

citizenship of an individual is “determined by her state of domicile, not her state of residence,” 

with a domicile being the individual’s “permanent home, where she resides with the intention to 

remain or to which she intends to return.” Kanter v. Warner-Lamber Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th 

Cir. 2001).

Here, Plaintiff alleges no facts to establish that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction 

over this action. Plaintiff’s complaint indicates that the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction is both 

diversity of citizenship and the presence of a federal question but alleges no facts in support of 

either basis. (ECF No. 1 at 3-4). Under the section of the complaint instructing Plaintiff to set 

forth the basis for federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff states only, “Arising vilation of rights; 

personal injury attempted murder druggings [illegible] cocaine & posion & carbon dixode intental 

& setup tort.” (Id. at 4).

Additionally, Plaintiff has not established subject-matter jurisdiction based on complete 

diversity of the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interests 

and costs. Plaintiff lists her address as Clovis, California. As to only three defendants, Plaintiff 

provides street addresses, which the Court believes are meant to refer to locations in Fresno, 

California. For example, Plaintiff names as a defendant University Inn Hotel, and lists 

Case 1:24-cv-01316-KES-EPG Document 7 Filed 12/13/24 Page 4 of 7
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

“Shaw/First” as the street address. University Inn Hotel in Fresno, California is located at 2655 E. 

Shaw Ave. Moreover, on the Civil Cover Sheet accompanying the complaint, Plaintiff has 

checked boxes indicating that at least defendant is a citizen of California. (ECF No. 1-1). 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this 

action.

C. Dismissal Without Leave to Amend

The Court further recommends dismissing this action without granting leave to amend.

Leave for a party to amend a complaint under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure “shall be freely given when justice so requires . . . and this policy is to be applied with 

extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 

1990) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

The Court concludes that granting Plaintiff leave to amend in this action would be futile in 

light of Plaintiff’s extensive history of deficient filings and repeated admonitions from the Court. 

Indeed, from a review of the Court’s electronic filing system it appears that, in 2024 alone, 

Plaintiff has filed 17 cases in this District. Of these cases, 13 have either been dismissed or are 

pending possible dismissal:

- Smith v. Novoa, No. 1:24-cv-00199-JLT-SKO (filed February 14, 2024; dismissed March 

26, 2024, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and without further leave to amend);

- Smith v. Cordoza, No. 1:24-cv-00200-KES-BAM (filed February 14, 2024; dismissed 

October 11, 2024, for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failure 

to establish Court’s jurisdiction);

- Smith v. Planet Fitness, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00203-JLT-HBK (filed February 15, 2024; 

dismissed August 2, 2024, for failure to comply with the Court’s orders and failure to 

prosecute);

- Smith v. McDonalds Incorporated, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00204-KES-SAB (filed February 

15, 2024; pending recommended dismissal, without further leave to amend, for failure to 

comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failure to establish subject-matter 

jurisdiction);

- Smith v. Novoa, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00221-KES-HBK (filed February 21, 2024; pending 

Case 1:24-cv-01316-KES-EPG Document 7 Filed 12/13/24 Page 5 of 7
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

recommended dismissal, without further leave to amend, for being duplicative of filing

Smith v. Novoa, No. 1:24-cv-00199-JLT-SKO and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction);

- Smith v. Novoa, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00251-KES-EPG (filed February 29, 2024; dismissed 

August 26, 2024, for failure to file a long form in forma pauperis application or pay filing 

fee);

- Smith v. Davis, No. 1:24-cv-00476-JLT-EPG (filed April 22, 2024; pending recommended 

dismissal without further leave to amend for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction);

- Smith v. West Coast Hotel Management, LLC, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00586-KES-HBK (filed 

May 16, 2024; pending recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute)

- Smith v. Kemper Insurance, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00587-JLT-SKO (filed May 16, 2024; 

pending recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 

Court’s orders);

- Smith v. Farmers Insurance, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00588-KES-BAM (filed May 16, 2024; 

pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and 

for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction);

- Smith v. Community Hospital, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00589-KES-BAM (filed May 16, 2024; 

pending recommended dismissal for failure to comply with Court’s orders, lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted);

- Smith v. Chick-Fil-A, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00814-JLT-BAM (filed July 15, 2024; pending 

recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and 

for failure to comply with Court’s orders);

- Smith v. Dyer, et al., No. 1:24-cv-01288-JLT-EPG (filed October 22, 2024; pending 

recommended dismissal without leave to amend for failure to comply with Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 8 and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).

It thus appears that granting leave to amend in this action would be futile. Additionally, 

the Court has concluded that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action, and it does not 

appear that Plaintiff could cure this deficiency by submitting an amended complaint.

Case 1:24-cv-01316-KES-EPG Document 7 Filed 12/13/24 Page 6 of 7
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

7

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, and the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. Further, the 

Court recommends that Plaintiff should not be granted leave to file an amended complaint in light 

of Plaintiff’s extensive history with deficient filings in this District and the apparent futility of 

amendment.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the Clerk of Court direct a District Judge to this case. 

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows:

1. This action be dismissed, without prejudice and without leave to amend, for failure to 

comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction.

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages, 

including exhibits. 

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 

waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01316-KES-EPG Document 7 Filed 12/13/24 Page 7 of 7