Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04818/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04818-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBRA A. JUDD,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIN CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-04818-KAW 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Plaintiff Debra Judd, who proceeds pro se, brings the instant suit against Defendant Marin 

City Housing Authority. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis, which the Court granted in a separate order on September 23, 2016. (Dkt. No. 8.) 

Plaintiff's complaint, however, must be dismissed with leave to amend because the Court lacks 

jurisdiction and the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a court "shall dismiss [a] case at any time if the court 

determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain "a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." But "a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "Threadbare 

recitals of the elements of a cause of action" and "conclusory statements" are not adequate. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 

probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 

unlawfully . . . . When a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's 

Case 4:16-cv-04818-KAW Document 9 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." Id.

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (internal citations omitted).

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) 

(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). "A pro se complaint, however inartfully 

pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers . . . . " 

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106 (internal citations omitted).

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's complaint concerns Defendant's negligence on two grounds. First, Plaintiff 

alleges that there are dog feces everywhere on the property grounds, creating a health hazard. 

(Compl. at 1.) Second, Plaintiff alleges that on September 11, 2015, she fell on the sidewalk due 

to a 3-inch gap and was taken to a hospital. (Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff did not break anything, but 

was sore for three days. The 3-inch gap was filled about two months later. Based on Defendant's 

negligence in not cleaning the dog feces and for maintaining dangerous sidewalks, Plaintiff seeks 

$100,000,000. (Compl. at 1.)

The Court finds that dismissal of the complaint is appropriate.1 First, Plaintiff has failed to 

separately plead each cause of action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 ("A party must state its claims or 

defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of 

circumstances. . . . If doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction 

or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count or defense."). Plaintiff does not separately 

plead any of her causes of actions, and it is not clear what her claims are or the legal basis for 

these claims. For the sake of clarity, Plaintiff should separately plead each cause of action, along 

with the specific facts that support each one.

Second, assuming Plaintiff is only bringing a negligence claim, the Court lacks jurisdiction 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to having a magistrate judge conduct further proceedings in this case. 

(Docket No. 7.) The Court does not require the consent of Defendant because Defendant has not 

been served and therefore is not a party within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Ornelas v. 

De Frantz, No. 00-1067, 2000 WL 973684, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2000) (citing Neals v. 

Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1994) (magistrate judge has jurisdiction to dismiss prisoner's 

civil rights action without consent of defendants because defendants had not been served yet and 

therefore were not parties).

Case 4:16-cv-04818-KAW Document 9 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

over the case. Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over actions that present a federal 

question or those based on diversity jurisdiction. See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 

1179, 1183 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2002). Federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction over 

"all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 

1331. Federal question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which 

provides that the basis for federal jurisdiction must appear on the face of the properly pleaded 

complaint, either because the complaint directly raises an issue of federal law or because the 

plaintiff's "right to relief under state law requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law 

in dispute between the parties." Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for 

S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983). Here, Plaintiff appears to bring a negligence claim, which is a state 

cause of action. Therefore, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over the case as currently 

pled.

Diversity jurisdiction, in turn, exists "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or 

value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States." 

28 U.S.C. §1332(a). When federal subject-matter jurisdiction is predicated on diversity of 

citizenship, complete diversity must exist between the opposing parties. Owen Equip. & Erection 

Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978). Both Plaintiff and the Marin Housing Authority are 

California citizens, and therefore the Court also lacks diversity jurisdiction over the case. Absent 

jurisdiction, the Court cannot hear this case.

Third, even assuming the Court had jurisdiction over the case, Plaintiff has not adequately 

pled a negligence claim. Under California law, to prove negligence a plaintiff must plead and 

prove: (1) defendant's legal duty of care toward plaintiff, (2) defendant's breach of that duty, (3) 

damage or injury to plaintiff, and (4) a causal relationship between defendant's negligence and 

plaintiff's damages. Palm v. United States, 835 F. Supp. 512, 520 (N.D. Cal. 1993). With respect 

to Defendant's alleged negligence in cleaning the property of dog feces, Plaintiff does not allege 

any damage or injury to herself. As for Defendant's alleged negligence in fixing the sidewalk, 

Plaintiff has not pled facts showing that Defendant had a duty to maintain the sidewalk, such as 

being the property owner of the area where Plaintiff fell. She also fails to allege that she has 

Case 4:16-cv-04818-KAW Document 9 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

complied with California's Governmental Claims Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 945.6, by filing the 

required claim against the public entity defendant and that her claim was denied before filing suit.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of this order. Plaintiff is on notice 

that the first amended complaint will supersede the original complaint, such that it will be treated 

as nonexistent. See Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 878 n.40 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on 

other grounds by Johnson v. Cal., 543 U.S. 499 (2005). For this reason, Plaintiff shall properly 

identify the legal and factual bases for all of her claims, free of any reference to any prior 

complaint, and she shall clearly identify the specific claims asserted against each defendant. See

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. 

Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). She must also, if possible, show a basis for this 

Court to have jurisdiction over the case, or her complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. 

Failure to file a first amended complaint within 30 days of this order may result in dismissal of 

this action for failure to prosecute. If Plaintiff is unable to amend the complaint to establish a 

basis for this Court's jurisdiction, she may file a voluntary dismissal and file her action in the 

proper state court.

To ensure that her first amended complaint complies with this order, Plaintiff may wish to 

contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help Desk—a free service for pro se litigants—by calling 

(415) 782-8982. The Court has also adopted a manual for use by pro se litigants, which may be 

helpful to Plaintiff. This manual, and other free information is available online at: 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-04818-KAW Document 9 Filed 09/30/16 Page 4 of 4