Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00889/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00889-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 330
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers' Liability
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I. Introduction

This lawsuit is brought by a foster mother — Plaintiff Jackie Stockstill, who is appearing 

pro se — against several public and private actors who allegedly retaliated against Stockstill 

because Stockstill complained to her daughter’s school district that her daughter’s school nurse 

failed to properly treat the daughter’s infection. The public and private actors that allegedly 

retaliated against Stockstill include the following defendants: first, the two school districts that 

Stockstill’s children attended, Fresno Unified School District and Central Unified School District; 

second, the local public entity that administered the foster care program that Stockstill and her 

children participated in, Fresno County Department of Social Services; third, the local public 

entity that administered Stockstill’s “Section 8” housing, Fresno Housing Authority; fourth,

Stockstill’s former landlord, Hardev Singh Sidhu;1 fifth, the public health plan that Stockstill and 

her children participated in, CalViva Health;2 sixth, the health care providers who denied medical 

treatment to Stockstill’s children, Baz Allergy Asthma & Sinus Center, Dr. Ajit Singh, and Family 

1

 Stockstill’s complaint refers to Hardev Sidhu as “Sidhu Hardev Singh.” See Doc. No. 10. However, in his motion, 

Hardev Sidhu presents himself as “Hardev Singh Sidhu.” See Doc. No. 47-1. Therefore, the Court’s references in 

this order to “Hardev Sidhu” are synonymous with the complaint’s references to “Sidhu Hardev Singh.” 2

 In CalViva Health’s motion, CalViva Health states that its full name is “Fresno-Kings-Madera Regional Health 

Authority,” and “CalViva Health” is its “dba” moniker.

JACKIE STOCKSTILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL 

SERVICES et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO

ORDER DISMISSING STOCKSTILL’S 

CLAIMS FOR LACK OF SUBJECTMATTER JURISDICTION

(Doc. Nos. 23, 28, 30, 33, 35, 37, 40, 44, 

47, 56, 59, 65)

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 1 of 22
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

HealthCare Network;

3 and seventh, the woman who told Stockstill that Stockstill’s case against 

Central Unified School District was worth $100,000, Alecia Eugene-Chasten.

Now before the Court are several motions from several defendants attacking Stockstill’s 

claims and complaint. Specifically, the motions now before the Court are as follows: 

• Rule 12(b)(1): Motions to dismiss Stockstill’s claims for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), which were filed by Dr. Singh; CalViva 

Health (“CalViva”); Fresno Housing Authority; Baz Allergy Ashma & Sinus 

Center (“Baz Allergy”); Fresno Unified School District (“Fresno Unified”); Fresno 

County Department of Social Services (“Fresno County DSS”); Hardev Sidhu; 

Central Unified School District (“Central Unified”); and Family HealthCare 

Network.4 See Doc. Nos. 23, 28-1, 30, 36, 40-1, 44-1, 47-1, 56, 65-1.

• Rule 8(a)(2) and Rule 10(b): Motions to dismiss Stockstill’s claims for failure to 

comply with Rule 8(a)(2) and Rule 10(b), which were filed by Dr. Singh; Baz 

Allergy; Hardev Sidhu; and Central Unified. See Doc. Nos. 23, 36, 47-1, 56.

• Rule 12(b)(6): Motions to dismiss Stockstill’s claims for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which were filed by 

Dr. Singh; CalViva; Fresno Housing Authority; Baz Allergy; Fresno County DSS; 

Hardev Sidhu; Central Unified; and Family HealthCare Network. See Doc. Nos. 

23, 28-1, 30, 44-1, 47-1, 56, 65-1.

• Rule 12(b)(4) and Rule 12(b)(5): Motions to dismiss Stockstill’s claims for 

insufficient process and insufficient service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4) 

3

 Stockstill’s complaint refers to Family HealthCare Network as “Family Health Care” and “Children Health Care.” 

See Doc. No. 10. However, in its motion to dismiss, Family HealthCare Network represents to the Court that its 

proper name is “Family HealthCare Network.” See Doc. No. 65-1. Therefore, the Court’s references in this order to 

“Family HealthCare Network” are synonymous with the complaint’s references to “Family Health Care” and 

“Children Health Care.” 4

 In addition to the motions that are now before the Court, Alecia Eugene-Chasten filed an answer to Stockstill’s 

complaint, and in the answer Eugene-Chasten raised the defense that Stockstill’s claims lacked a federal question. See

Doc. No. 20. Further, as for Family HealthCare Network’s motion to dismiss, see Doc. No. 65, that motion is 

currently scheduled for hearing on April 6, 2020, but the Court will vacate that hearing and adjudicate the motion 

through this order because the arguments in the motion (i.e., Rule 12(b)(1), Rule 12(b)(6), and Rule 12(e) arguments) 

are nearly identical to the arguments raised by the other defendants’ motions. 

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 2 of 22
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

and Rule 12(b)(5), which were filed by Fresno Unified and Fresno County DSS. 

See Doc. Nos. 40-1, 44-1.

• Rule 12(e): Motions for a more definite statement of Stockstill’s claims pursuant to 

Rule 12(e), which were filed by Dr. Singh; Baz Allergy; Central Unified; and 

Family HealthCare Network. See Doc. Nos. 23, 36, 56, 65-1. 

• Rule 12(f): Motion to strike redundant, immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous 

matter from Stockstill’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f), which was filed by Dr. 

Singh. See Doc. No. 23. 

II. Facts

A. Factual allegations from Stockstill’s complaint.

1. Preface from the Court.

The following facts are taken from the allegations in Stockstill’s complaint. See Doc. No. 

10 (Stockstill’s first amended complaint). At the outset, the Court notes that much of the 

complaint’s allegations and factual narrative are unintelligible and incoherent. As a result, many 

of the following facts presented in this subsection are also unintelligible and incoherent, despite 

the Court’s earnest attempt at distilling, synthesizing, and summarizing the complaint’s factual 

allegations. 

2. Jackie Stockstill.

Jackie Stockstill is “a stay-at-home mom” whose daughter passed away. Doc. No. 10. The

deceased daughter “left behind one child” to Stockstill. Id. Stockstill is the guardian of a 

daughter, Emontey. Stockstill is the foster mother to “two foster boys,” Joe and Lupe. Id. 

Stockstill has “taken care of” a “a list of kids” “for long-term and short-term.” Id.

3. Central Unified School District and Fresno Unified School District.

Stockstill’s daughter, Emontey, contracted staphylococcus aureus (“MRSA,” which is the 

acronym for “methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus”) while attending McKinley Elementary 

School. McKinley Elementary School is part of Central Unified. McKinley Elementary School 

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 3 of 22
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

did not provide Emontey with “proper medical treatment” for MRSA. Id. Emontey’s infection

was not “reported to the state” by McKinley Elementary School or Clovis Unified. Id. 

An “incident report should have been made between the school and [Fresno County 

DSS].” Id. Emontey was “taken to the ER at Community Medical Center, where she was 

admitted into the ICU.” Id. Stockstill lodged “several complaints” with Central Unified about the 

“school nurse” “fail[ing] to give [Emontey] proper medical treatment,” a failure that caused “a lot 

of healthy relationships to unfold due to retaliation and cover-up.” Id.

“[M]ore than one of [Stockstill’s] children are experiencing some type of illness relatable 

to the illness that [Emontey] suffers from.” Id. “Some of the other children are being treated with 

the same type of medication [that Emontey] is on.” Id. “One of the children is experiencing 

allergic reactions first started off very slow now is starting to be real progressive and could have 

all ready been treated due to retaliation from the [director of Fresno County DSS,] Delfino E. 

Neira[,] that over the medical department tampering with treatment delays in services.” Id.

The “County of Fresno Department of Public Health Communicable Disease Monthly 

Report” “have no report” of MRSA. Id. “5 years annual average 0.” Id. During the 2016-2017 

school year, “it[] show[s] Stapylococcus Aureus-Methhicillin Resistent (MSRA).” On December 

6, 2016, Lisa Reyna “left a letter our agency received a referral with allegations of abuse and/or 

neglect regarding” Stockstill’s children. Id. The allegations were false and came from someone at 

McKinley Elementary School “because a message was left on [Stockstill’s] voice mail intended 

for the school saying she is a worker from the department of social services her name is How she 

name Amanda who work in the after school program and name [Stockstill’s] granddaughter 

Alayiah’s Greely and more than one call was made.” Id. 

Stockstill’s children were transferred from school/s in Central Unified to school/s in

Fresno Unified. “Vang Poa Elementary School is the last school [a]ttended by [Stockstill’s]

children.” Id. When Stockstill applied for her children to attend the school, she noted that one of 

the children, Lupe, had hearing loss. Lupe was put “on a 504 plan.” Id. The previous schools that 

Lupe attended had “made” a “plan.” Id. “A decoration was also done on the previous school[,] 

Jefferson Elementary School[,] under the same superintendent and district as Van[g] Poa 

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 4 of 22
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

Elementary.” Id. The children attended Vang Poa Elementary School for about five weeks,

during which time Lupe had no behavioral issues. One day during those five weeks, September 5, 

2018, Lupe “received student of the day.” Id. 

On September 13, 2018, Stockstill received a “message from Vice Principal Julie 

Johnson.” Id. Stockstill “returned the call the same day,” and Johnson told Stockstill that her 

foster son, Joe, had “been harassing students and [had] not been very nice.” Id. Johnson told 

Stockstill that Joe “called the girls dumb[,] stupid[,] and ugly.” Id. “What [Stockstill] was told on 

the phone was not on the narrative description.” Id. The “narrative description” stated that “this 

morning, two girls were very upset and asked to speak with the principal,” and “[y]esterday at 

lunch Joe slapped one of the girls on the butt and then ‘corndogged’ her by putting his knee into 

her buttocks,” and “[t]here were several witnesses,” and “[t]hen [Joe] went to [another] girl with 

an open hand, hit her on the left breast and called her a ‘bitch.’” Id. “On the same day they tried 

to suspend Lupe for saying the word fruity.” Id. Stockstill “told them Lupe [was] on a 504 plan,”

and “they stated that they didn’t know that.” Id.

Stockstill “called a meeting with both VP [Johnson] and Principal Ms. Lee.” Id. Stockstill 

“came to the meeting with both boys[,] Joe and Lupe.” Id. Stockstill, Johnson, and Lee “talked 

all together” and “then [with] the boys one on one.” Id. Stockstill “told . . . Lee that what 

[Stockstill] was told on [the] phone is not what [was] on the narrative description at that time.” Id. 

Johnson “said she didn’t tell [Stockstill] those thing on narrative almost in tear.” Id. Lee 

“carr[ied] on like . . . Johnson didn’t say a word.” Id. “Joe also said in the meet[ing] why nothing 

was done when kids was going saying[,] [‘]I’m gay[.’]” Id. “Joe also told them he was in 

detention at time they said he did those thing to girls.” Id. Stockstill “said with that being said[,] 

[she felt] it is not a safe and supportive place of learning.” Id.

Vang Poa Elementary School “never send home a Student Suspension form for Lupe but 

put it on his transcripts.” Stockstill had “a conversation over the phone about 504 plan.” Id. 

Stockstill “then requested an independent study contract for all four of [her] children in writing.” 

Id. Stockstill asked “for week packs.” Id. Stockstill was “set . . . up [with week packs] for 15 

days.” Id. “[M]ade [Stockstill] wait the next time for work while in contract with the school send 

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 5 of 22
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

me a first and second truancy on the same days.” Id. “They refuse to give me work while 

[Stockstill and the school] resolve this matter.” Id. 

“A notarized acknowledgement was done on Van[g] Poa Elementary [on September 16, 

2018, and] on Jefferson Elementary School on [September 15, 2018].” Id.

Stockstill’s “kids had no attendance issues before this matter occur.” Id. “Five school 

later the retaliation continue,” and Stockstill refuses “to put [her] kids in school until this matter is 

resolved.” Id. Stockstill’s “kids are still fight illnesses that was contracted [from] school.” Id. 

The children are left untreated. 

The schools and school districts that Stockstill’s children attended retaliated against 

Stockstill and her children. Stockstill’s children cannot attend school and receive a proper 

education “without some unGodley acts being made from the school district.” Id.

 Stockstill seeks $750,000 in damages from Central Unified for “[a]llegations of 

‘Unfounded and Reckless’ Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting.” Id. “[T]hese vicious attacks 

have caused [Stockstill’s] family Retaliation, Libel, Slander[,] Intentional infliction of emotional 

distress, Administrators / staff making knowingly false report of child abuse, Violation of 

[Stockstill’s] Civil Right, Malicious prosecution, and Abuse of process.” Id.

Stockstill seeks $76,000 dollars in damages from Fresno Unified for “continuing the 

retaliation[,] refusing to provide a free public education, stopping the education of my daughter 

while fighting [an] infectious disease, . . . denying [Stockstill’s children] home study[,] never 

enrolling her into school[,] also calling CPS for not a legit reason,” and “[a]lso the unfair treatment 

of [Stockstill’s foster boys[,] also involving DSS[,] causing more trauma for the unfair treatment 

from the tricks and schemes from the [Fresno County DSS] and the school district.” Id.

4. Fresno County Department of Social Services.

Stockstill was in good standing with Fresno County DSS for a few years. But then 

Stockstill “had issues after issues with [Fresno County DSS].” Id. Stockstill is the “legal guardian 

of [her] foster boys.” Id. Stockstill tried to adopt her “foster boy,” but the foster boy’s biological 

mother “made false reports,” and Cory Pope, a supervisor at Fresno County DSS, lied to the 

Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, which required Stockstill to request to change the 

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 6 of 22
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

“court order” through a “JV-180 more than two times,” but the court did not respond to

Stockstill’s request, and “CPS [is] not following policy and procedures.” Id.

A “decoration was done on 1/31/18” to the Fresno County DSS. Id. Fresno County DSS 

had fourteen days “to respond to [the] decoration or provide documentation that [Stockstill] was 

out of compliance.” Id. Fresno County DSS never responded. 

Stockstill had a foster care license for Tailyiah Jackson. Stockstill applied to Fresno 

County DSS for a “RFA license” for foster care of her “foster boys.” Id. Agents of Fresno 

County DSS, Cory Pope and Jessica Carrillo, knew Stockstill’s “whereabouts [but] sent the denial 

letter for [the] RFA License . . . to the wrong address.” Id. Stockstill found out about this later. 

Cory Pope eventually came to Stockstill’s correct residence. Pope “left a text message”

with Stockstill that stated, “I stopped by your house on George since you are not returning my 

phone or test messages,” and “it will be helpful to you and the kids to meet at [Pope’s] office.” Id. 

This caused “more trauma” to Stockstill because it was “harassing” Stockstill with “unnecessary 

contacts when [Stockstill] already had her six-month visit.” Id. Stockstill was only supposed to 

have contact from Fresno County DSS once every six months, but Stockstill received 

“overwhelming calls” to her “place of residence.” Id.

On May 31, 2019, Stockstill met “with the children[’s] case worker[,] Nicole Brook[,] as 

in the past a Case Plan Update is done.” Id. “No documents [were] given” to Stockstill.” Id. 

“[W]hile [Brook was] talking to the kids and asking them question[s,] she tell the boys to said 

what they want to said and not what [Stockstill] want them to said.” Id.

“One of the children is experiencing allergic reactions first started off very slow now is 

starting to be real progressive and could have all ready been treated due to retaliation from [Fresno 

County DSS and] Delfino E. Neira that over the medical department tampering with treatment 

delays in services.” Id. “Interfering with the doctor visits and treatments at the facilities 

[Stockstill’s] children go to.” Id. “They continues to put [Stockstill’s children’s] health at risk.” 

Id. “Changing [Stockstill’s] medical plans without [Stockstill’s] knowledge[,] switching 

[Stockstill’s] kids[’] doctor[,] making it hard to receive [treatment,] also messing with the medical 

billing as well like [Stockstill] don’t have coverage.” Id. “They continues to put my children at 

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 7 of 22
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

8

risk.” Id. “Chan[g]ing my medical plans without my knowledge switching my kids doctor 

making it hard to receive treatment also messing with the medical billing as well like I don’t have 

coverage.” Id.

Stockstill seeks $750,000 in damages from Fresno County DSS for “[ta]mpering with 

medical records, medical treatment, medical billing, cover-ups, lying in a court of law, Intentional 

infliction of emotional distress, Malicious prosecution, . . . Abuse of process, stopping [Stockstill] 

from using any government-funded programs, Stopping [Stockstill] from caring for other 

children’s, interfering with the education of the children, [$]250,000 for the pain and suffering.”

Id.

5. Fresno Housing Authority and Hardev Sidhu.

Stockstill had been “on Section 8” for twenty years with “no issues at all.” Id. Stockstill 

just received an “upgrade from Section 8” for “a 4 bedroom voucher” and Stockstill “had already 

had her year or 6 mouth inspection.” Id. Stockstill was “in compliance with Section 8.” Then an 

employee from Fresno County DSS, Farrin Scheidt, illegally entered the residence at “4725 W 

University Ave Fresno.” Id. Scheidt opened the side gate and walked “around the facility” and 

looked into windows. Id. Scheidt left “no identification that he was on the premises.” Shortly 

after Scheidt was at the residence, Stockstill received a letter “out of nowhere” from Section 8 to 

terminate her “services.” Id. “Scheidt also was involved trying to get [another] county involved 

for something [Stockstill] was already investigated for and was denied.” Id. A “decoration was 

done on 10/24/18,” but “[t]hey” made no response. Id. Section 8 “stop[ed]” Stockstill from 

“receiving housing.” Id.

Hardev Sidhu was Stockstill’s landlord. Stockstill had “great relationship” with Sidhu for 

four years. Id. Sidhu told Stockstill that “he will give [Stockstill] a good reference” and “no 

money owed.” Id. But then Sidhu “said [Stockstill] damaged his property that he provided 

pictures.” Id. “[W]hen [Stockstill] asked the landlord about what they said he told [Stockstill] to 

have them show [Stockstill] the pictures.” Id. “[W]hen [Stockstill] asked section 8 to show 

[Stockstill] pictures[,] nothing was shown.” Id. Sidhu kept Stockstill’s entire security deposit and 

lied about “money owned for repair.” Id. “But [Stockstill is] the one that moved out because no 

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 8 of 22
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

9

[repairs] was being done and for health of [Stockstill’s] daughter due to mold build-up, roaches.”

Id. Sidhu told Stockstill that Section 8 “owned him money.” Id. “The date [Stockstill] moved out 

do not match the date on the [S]ection 8 voucher.” Id. “Paying [Sidhu] an extra month when he 

the one in the wrong.” Id.

A supervisor from Fresno Housing Authority, Stephanie, told Stockstill on May 10, 2018, 

that if Stockstill “bring in a letter” from Emontey’s doctor saying that Emontey “need[s] to move 

out of Fresno because of air quality,” then Stephanie would “re[]instate” Stockstill’s “transfer.” 

Id. On May 11, 2018, Stephanie said that Stockstill owed Sidhu $4,000. Stockstill talked to 

Butterfly Grove Apartments, which said that Sidhu told them that Stockstill owed $500. Neither 

Section 8 nor Sidhu gave Stockstill any documentation showing that Stockstill owed anything. Id. 

Stockstill never heard from Stephanie after May 11, 2018, until Stockstill served “them a 

decoration.” Id. 

Based on the foregoing facts, Stockstill seeks $16,000 in damages from Fresno Housing 

Authority and $3,000 in damages from Sidhu. 

6. CalViva Health.

CalViva is a public health care plan. Stockstill and her children were “on” CalViva. Id. 

Stockstill “never applied for Covered California.”

On January 10, 2019, “CalViva Health was advised by the [Department of Managed 

Health, or “DMHC”] . . . that the outcome of the [independent medical review] is determination 

that the requested services are medically necessary for treatment of Emontey[‘s] condition.” Id. 

On January 15, 2019, DMHC “submitted appeal for coverage of Allergy Shots to CalViva 

Health.” Id. “The case was sent for an Independent Medical Review (IMR).” Id. On January 15,

2019, “CalViva Health now had to overturned its denial and issued an authorization for the allergy 

shots with Baz [A]llergy and Asthma & Sinus Clinic (one a week for 52 weeks).” Id. “The 

authorization is effective from January 9,2019, through January 15, 2020.” Id. The authorization 

states that “you may contact the provider to arrange an appointment.” Id. DMHC provided 

Stockstill with a letter that stated, “Your health care provider was notified of this authorization on 

January 15, 2019.” Id. “Also [o]n December 15,2017, was already declared medically necessary 

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 9 of 22
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

10

from DMHC for the same thing.” Id. “Also on March 26, 2018[,] had [another] complaint 

regarding quality of service provided to my daughter for improper denial delay in services from 

CalViva Health.” Id. Stockstill filed “more than one grievance with CalViva Health for several

denials.” Id. 

Stockstill seeks $800,000 dollars in damages from CalViva for “[i]mproper delays, denial, 

stopping treatment[,] also the Department of Managed Health Care for the second time overturned 

decision of Health Plan Calviva Health January 10, 2019 they have already declared medically 

necessary approved for 52 weeks,” and “Stockstill’s daughter is still not receiving treatment,” and 

Stockstill “had to file several grievance after DMHC had already approved Allergy Shots while in 

treatment [and Stockstill’s] daughter showed she was benefit from treatment,” and “Calviva 

Health stop treatment that was already approved causing [Stockstill’s] daughter’s health to 

decline.” Id.

7. Dr. Ajit Singh. 

Dr. Singh was the doctor for Stockstill’s children. “[A]ll the kids had the same doctor Dr. 

Aj[it] Singh,” who was Stockstill’s children’s “long time physician.” Id. Stockstill “had a lot of 

trust in him.” Id. Dr. Singh “was aware about the situation with the school.” Id. Stockstill “tried 

to get [Dr. Singh] to test the kids for MRSA, [but] he started being real unprofessional after been 

my doctor for 12 years cover up was made have documentation to show.” Id. Dr. Singh “refused 

to give treatment when he told [Stockstill] to video the kids sleeping and then he would run the 

test if [Stockstill] bring in video and it showed they had trouble breathing at night.” Id. Stockstill 

did this but Dr. Singh still refused to give treatment, [and] also refused to give [Stockstill] medical 

records for all [Stockstill’s] children’s.” Id. “This only started happening after the complaint was 

filed [by Stockstill] against the school about the infectious Disease that [Emontey] contracted from 

the school.” Id.

“The same thing started to happen when switch physician went through several facilities 

was received care then it would stop all facilities and health plan involved Children’s Health 

Center,” which “turned in to Family Healthcare, Dr. Baz Allergy Center, Clinica Sierra Vista, 

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 10 of 22
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

11

Family Allergy Asthma Clinic.” Id. Stockstill has “documentation” for “CalViva Health, Anthem 

Blue Cross, Covered California.” Id. 

Stockstill seeks $900,000 dollars in damages from Dr. Singh for her “kids[‘] health that 

declining for not being treated and for the pain and suffering it caused.” Id.

8. Baz Allergy Asthma & Sinus Center.

Stockstill’s daughter, Emontey, was going to a Baz Allergy clinic for about two years and 

was referred there “by the hospitals.” Id. Stockstill “called to arrange appointment,” and the 

clinic “stop[ed] treatment” and “told [Stockstill] they no longer except CalViva after they are the 

one requested one a week injections.” Id. The clinic “started denying services like the same as 

everyone else stated Falsifies, conceals, or covers up by trick, scheme [Stockstill’s] innocent 

daughter still unable to receive treatment.” Id. The clinic is “playing games with [Emontey’s]

life.” Id. Stockstill knows the clinic “still [accepts] her health plan because [Stockstill] called 

anther facility and its stated on [their] website.” Id. “Also on 11\6\18 Baz Allergy, Asthma & 

Sinus Center there is a letter” that states, “To Whom It May Concern: Patient, Emontey Epps is to 

be on injections for 5 years.” Id. “Also [Stockstill has] [another] letter with her 3 [month] 

appointment stopped her healthcare services for no valid reason, knowing that [Stockstill] was 

waiting on authorization.” Id.

Based on the foregoing facts, Stockstill seeks $50,000 in damages from Baz Allergy.

9. Family Allergy Asthma Clinic.

Stockstill was referred by Dr. John Moua to Family Allergy Asthma Clinic, located at 

“7105 N Chestnut Fresno CA 93720.” Lupe and Emontey were referred to this clinic by two 

different doctors, and both Lupe and Emontey were visiting this clinic. “Lupe was able to 

receive[] treatment but not Emontey retaliation continue.” Id. “Lupe was seen by anther health 

center called Elm Family Community Center 2740 S. Elm Avenue Fresno, CA 9306,” and “was

referred to anther clinic to see a dermatologist for second time at Clinic Sierra Vista” and “seen by

Kalila D Banks.” Id. Banks saw Lupe’s rash, and Stockstill told Banks that “blood work was 

never done,” and Banks ordered blood work.” Id. “[L]gg levels came back in normal range that 

when Lupe was seen by Family allergy Asthma Clinic rash didn’t come from allergy.” Id. 

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 11 of 22
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

12

Stockstill “told Kalila Banks about Emontey and that [Stockstill] think that all children are 

suffering from the same communicable disease that Emontey have.” Id. Stockstill received a 

“call back from Kalila D Banks,” and Banks “stated that its was more like true want I was saying 

because Lupe lgg was normal range but she still had him do other test at Family Allergy Asthma 

clinic.” Id. Banks stated that “she contacted the Communicable Disease Department and Central 

Unifed School District talked to her one more time was waiting on a call from her never received a

call back.” Id. “DSS is also over Kalila Banks facility.” Id.

10. Jeannette Munoz.

Jeannette Munoz is the biological mother of one of Stockstill’s foster children. Munoz 

“wrote a letter on [Stockstill’s] behalf on Tue, May 9, 2017[,] saying she [has] witnessed 

[Stockstill] provide a nurturing, healthy, loving safe home for her boys,” and Munoz also said that 

Stockstill “was a great support for them emotionally since in my care and she is beyond grateful 

for all [Stockstill has] done for her children.” Id. On January 17, 2018, Munoz “turn around made 

a false report and said minor was sexually abused by his minor siblings and the caretaker of minor 

was aware of the situation.” Id. Stockstill “was out of town with Jeannette at the time because the 

same day [Stockstill] left that when Farrin Scheidt’s showed up when [Stockstill] was leaving in 

December so on the document its said when referral came into the CPS Hotline it was for guardian 

Jackie Stockstill and minor in her home, were a DIU Family 2nd referral was created.” Id. 

“However, it was later discovered this was not true and referral was evaluated out onto this 

referral and the same allegations were addressed in that referral.” Id. “Even though Farrin 

Scheidt’s SW from DSS know its was not true he still contacted Riverside County CPS and spoke 

with Toya King who took down the reported.” Id. “SW followed up with SCARs report and fax it 

to Riverside County CP on same day.” Id.

On February 1, 2018, “SW Scheidt received an emergency response notice of referral 

disposition from Riverside County CPS.” Id. “SW was notified the report SW made does not 

meet the state requirements for intervention.” Id. “Also during Crisis investigation reported to 

Fresno Police Department.” Id. “Knowing allegations wasn’t true.” Id.

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 12 of 22
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

13

11. Alecia Eugene-Chasten.

Eugene-Chasten told Stockstill that Stockstill’s case against Central Unified was worth 

$100,000, but then Eugene-Chasten “did not turn in any of [Stockstill’s] evidence for [EugeneChasten’s] own personal gain.” Id. Eugene-Chasten and Stockstill were “in a signed contract,”

and Eugene-Chasten “is more than qualified to finish the job.” Id. This is “causing more 

emotional distress also the education of [Stockstill’s] children to fail.” Id.

Based on the foregoing facts, Stockstill seeks $100,000 in damages from Eugene-Chasten.

12. Stockstill’s other requested relief.

Stockstill asks the Court to “put a stop to the retaliation of [her] family.” Id. Stockstill 

says she needs “immediate assistance in the relocation so [she] and her family can receive proper 

medical treatment.” Id. Stockstill wants “the school district involved to pay for a tutoring, a 

private school of her choice, laptops, any equipments needed to catch children up in their school 

work and for the Court to address all matters in Federal Court.” Id. Stockstill was previously 

“treated unfairly in the Superior Court of California County of Fresno [Juvenile] Department 

Central Division.” Id. Stockstill wants “to address change in visitation, school records, pay the 

correct amount for special need, issue a RFA license . . . and [d]eal no longer with Fresno County 

for foster care but deal with another county.” Id.

13. Complaint’s statement of jurisdiction.

In her complaint, Stockstill states that the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction is “federal 

question,” not “diversity of citizenship.” Id. Stockstill states that the following federal laws are at 

issue to her claims: 

• 28 U.S.C. § 4101, which is a law that defines “defamation” for purposes of a 

judicial proceeding wherein a domestic federal or state court is asked to recognize 

or enforce a foreign judgment for defamation.

• The Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.

• “Plain Language Act,” which possibly is a reference to the Plain Writing Act of 

2010, Pub. L. No. 111-274, 124 Stat. 2861. 

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 13 of 22
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

14

• 18 U.S.C. 1001, which is a law that applies federal crimes of fraud and false 

statements.

• 38 U.S.C. § 7316, which is a law that applies to claims of malpractice or negligence 

of a health care employee of the Veterans Health Administration.

• 41 U.S.C. § 6503, which is a law that applies to breaches or violations of contracts 

made by agencies of the United States.

• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794 eq seq., which 

prohibits discrimination based upon disability. 

• “Malicious prosecution and abuse of process Administrators / staff making a 

knowingly false report of child abuse in violation of penal sec 1117(a),” which is 

possibly a reference to the California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, Cal. 

Penal Code §§ 11164 et seq.

• “Intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

• “Libel, Slander.”

• “Negligent infliction of emotional distress.”

• California Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7.

III. Discussion

A. Subject-matter jurisdiction.

1. Defendants’ arguments. 

The defendants argue that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Stockstill’s 

claims and, as a result, the claims should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). See Doc. Nos. 

23, 28-1, 30, 36, 40-1, 44-1, 47-1, 56. According to the defendants, the allegations in Stockstill’s 

complaint — to the extent that they are intelligible — fail to plead a claim arising under federal 

law, even despite Stockstill’s references in the complaint to several federal laws. 

2. Stockstill’s arguments.

Stockstill filed an opposition to Dr. Singh’s motion and Baz Allergy’s motion. See Doc. 

Nos. 34, 51. As to the other defendants’ motions, Stockstill failed to timely file an opposition or 

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 14 of 22
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

15

request for an extension of time to file an opposition.5 In her opposition to Dr. Singh’s motion, 

Stockstill’s sole statement concerning subject-matter jurisdiction is as follows: 

18 U.S 1001 stated in the claim stated in attachment 3 page 2 cover up was made.

Statements or entries generally U.S.C, which generally prohibits knowingly and 

willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in any 

matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government of the U.S.

Doc. No. 34. In her opposition to Baz Allergy’s motion, Stockstill’s entire statement concerning 

subject-matter jurisdiction is as follows: 

On page 3 of 5 of the complaint a. Its states list the specific federal statutes, federal 

treaties and / or provisions if the Unites States Constitution on that are at issue in 

this case. In this case 18 U.S.C. 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) falsifies, conceals, or 

covers up by any trick, scheme, or devise a material fact; this statue pertaining to 

all parties including Baz allergy Asthma & Sinus Center. The motion to dismiss 

should not be granted on the grounds that the orders from Baz Allergy for treatment 

showed improvement from the shots your facility is aware of the patient need and 

knew that the shots [was] effective, knowing that her health would decline if 

treatment was stopped because you advocated how she would benefit from Weekly 

injections and ask for the approval. When the DMHC over turned the first denial 

from CalViva health for shots your facility started the shots right away. But the 

second time DMHC overturned denial for shot your facility new my family was 

wait for the authorization to started treatment .After DMHC approved the shot Baz 

Allergy started denying shots and treatment and making fraudulent statements

about services. She was approved on 1/10/2019 for 52 weeks by DMHC and has 

not had one shot. The retaliation played a big role in stopping treatment because 

the effort made on behalf of the facility in the beginning Was great this facility 

need to be held accountable for their actions my daughter health is still declining 

from the actions of Baz Allergy Asthma & Sinus Center. 

Doc. No. 51.

3. Legal standard.

The federal courts have limited jurisdiction and can only adjudicate cases that fall within 

Article III of the Constitution and a congressional authorization enacted thereunder. U.S. Const. 

art. III; Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 82-83 (2010). “It is 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., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Rule 8(a) expressly 

states that the party invoking the court’s jurisdiction must include in the pleading “a short and 

5

 Local Rule 230(c) requires an opposition to be filed “not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or 

continued) hearing date” for the motion. L.R. 230(c). On October 17, 2019, Stockstill filed a request for a fifteen-day 

extension to respond to Fresno County DSS’s motion. See Doc. No. 59. However, the hearing date for Fresno 

County DSS’s motion was scheduled for October 21, 2019. Accordingly, Stockstill’s request for an extension of time 

was untimely and is denied. 

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 15 of 22
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

16

plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction 

and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Federal question”

subject-matter jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which states that “the district courts 

shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties 

of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Rule 12(b)(1) allows for a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1). Rule 12(b)(1) motions may be either facial, where the inquiry is 

confined to the allegations in the complaint, or factual, where the court is permitted to look beyond 

the complaint to extrinsic evidence. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014); 

Safe Air For Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). When a defendant 

challenges jurisdiction facially, all material allegations in the complaint are assumed true, and the 

court determines whether the factual allegations are sufficient to invoke the court’s subject-matter 

jurisdiction. See Leite, 392 F.3d at 362; Meyer, 373 F.3d at 1039. 

A motion made under Rule 12(b)(1) should not “be confused with a motion [made] under 

Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief under federal or state law because the 

two are analytically different; as many courts have observed, the former determines whether the 

plaintiff has a right to be in the particular court and the latter is an adjudication as to whether a 

cognizable legal claim has been stated.” Wright & Miller, 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1350 (3d 

ed.) (citing cases). “But . . . the difference between the two motions is often difficult to discern.” 

Id.

4. Discussion.

The defendants have waged a facial attack on the Court’s federal question subject-matter 

jurisdiction over Stockstill’s claims.

6

 In other words, the defendants contend that the allegations 

in the complaint, even if presumed to be true, fail to sufficiently plead that at least one of 

Stockstill’s claims arises under federal law. Stockstill, on the other hand, contends that the 

6

 As noted supra, Stockstill asserts that the Court has federal question subject-matter jurisdiction. Neither Stockstill 

nor the defendants suggest that the Court has diversity subject-matter jurisdiction over Stockstill’s claims.

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 16 of 22
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

17

allegations in the complaint establish that the Court has federal question subject-matter 

jurisdiction because at issue to Stockstill’s claims are several federal laws. 

Even when construing Stockstill’s complaint broadly and liberally — as is required by 

Rule 8(e), especially for a pro se litigant such as Stockstill, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 

94 (2007); Ortez v. Washington County, State of Oregon, 88 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir.1996) — the 

Court agrees with the defendants that Stockstill’s complaint fails to sufficiently plead that at least 

one of Stockstill’s claims arises under federal law.

7

 Stockstill’s references in the complaint to 

several federal laws do not, by themselves, sufficiently plead federal question subject-matter 

jurisdiction. To determine whether the pleader sufficiently pleaded subject-matter jurisdiction, as 

is required by Rule 8(a), the court may look holistically at the entire complaint, not just the 

complaint’s jurisdictional statement. See In re Mailman Steam Carpet Cleaning Corp., 196 F.3d 1, 

5 (1st Cir. 1999). “If the pleader alleges subject matter jurisdiction generally, but allegations in 

later portions of the complaint negate its existence, the district court should read the complaint as a 

whole and dismiss the action.” Wright & Miller, 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1350 (3d ed.)

(citing cases). Further, “a suit may sometimes be dismissed for want of jurisdiction where the 

alleged claim under the Constitution or federal statutes clearly appears to be immaterial and made 

solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and 

frivolous.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co., 524 F.3d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 

Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946)); see also Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc., 536 F.3d 1217, 

1221 (11th Cir. 2008) (“When a plaintiff makes a plausible argument that a federal statute creates 

his right to relief, the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over that complaint.”) (emphasis 

added).

Here the allegations in Stockstill’s complaint do not sufficiently plead a claim arising 

under federal law, even despite Stockstill’s references to several federal laws. To summarize, 

Stockstill’s allegations — many of which are unintelligible — appear to tell the following story. 

Stockstill’s daughter, Emontey, contracted an infection at McKinley Elementary School, and the 

7

 Neither Stockstill nor the defendants suggest that the Court has diversity subject-matter jurisdiction over Stockstill’s 

claims.

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 17 of 22
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

18

school nurse did not properly treat the infection. Stockstill’s other children contracted the 

infection. Someone at the school alleged that Stockstill abused or neglected her children. After 

Stockstill transferred her children to Vang Poa Elementary School, administrators at the school

falsely reported that Stockstill’s son, Joe, misbehaved. Stockstill pulled her children out of school, 

and the school refused to provide Stockstill with home study “work” for the children. Doc. No. 

10. The biological mother of one of Stockstill’s foster children made a false report about 

Stockstill. Stockstill applied for a foster care license, but Fresno County DSS improperly denied 

the application and purposefully sent the denial letter to an incorrect address. Fresno County DSS 

interfered with Stockstill’s children’s medical treatment by changing Stockstill’s medical plans, 

switching Stockstill’s children’s doctors, and “messing” with the medical billing. Id. Cory Pope 

of Fresno County DSS harassed Stockstill by texting and calling Stockstill and inspecting 

Stockstill’s residence. The Fresno Housing Authority denied Stockstill’s Section 8 benefits. 

Stockstill’s landlord, Sidhu, falsely told Fresno Housing Authority that Stockstill damaged the

rental residence and owed him rent. Fresno County DSS denied Stockstill’s application for a 

foster care license. CalViva denied certain medical treatments for Stockstill’s children. The

Department of Managed Health reversed CalViva’s denials. Dr. Singh and Baz Allergy refused to 

provide medical treatment to Stockstill’s children and refused to provide medical records to 

Stockstill. Eugene-Chasten told Stockstill that Stockstill’s case against Central Unified was worth 

$100,000, but then Eugene-Chasten “did not turn in any of [Stockstill’s] evidence for [EugeneChasten’s] own personal gain.” Id.

According to Stockstill’s oppositions, the foregoing allegations plead a federal claim under 

18 U.S.C. § 1001. The Court disagrees. 18 U.S.C. § 1001 comes from a chapter of the federal 

criminal code that concerns criminal fraud and false statements. In other words, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 

is a penal statute. But Stockstill’s claims are civil, not criminal. “Criminal statutes cannot be the 

basis of jurisdiction in a civil case.” MotJuste Tirade of Vim Andre Juste v. Brennan, 16 F. Supp. 

3d 716, 725 (N.D.W. Va. 2014) (citation omitted); see also Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 79-80 (1975) 

(finding no jurisdiction over civil action arising from penal statute where “there was nothing more 

than a bare criminal statute, with absolutely no indication that civil enforcement of any kind was 

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 18 of 22
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

19

available to anyone”); Moore v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 2001 WL 815510, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 

July 19, 2001) (“The two fraud statutes Moore cites in his opposition brief are criminal statutes 

that do not provide federal jurisdiction over a civil lawsuit for money damages.”). Consequently, 

18 U.S.C. § 1001 does not provide the Court with a basis for federal question subject-matter 

jurisdiction over Stockstill’s claims.

As for Stockstill’s reference in the complaint to 28 U.S.C. § 4101, this law defines 

“defamation” for purposes of a judicial proceeding where a domestic federal or state court is asked 

to recognize or enforce a foreign judgment for defamation. But Stockstill’s allegations do not 

concern or raise issues of a foreign judgment for defamation. Accordingly, Stockstill’s reference 

to 28 U.S.C. § 4101 “appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining 

jurisdiction” and is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co., 

524 F.3d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir. 2008), which in turn means that 28 U.S.C. § 4101 does not provide 

the Court with a basis for federal question subject-matter jurisdiction over Stockstill’s claims.

As for Stockstill’s reference to the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq., 

the Fair Housing Act protects people from discrimination when they are renting or buying a home, 

getting a mortgage, seeking housing assistance, or engaging in other housing-related activities. 

But Stockstill’s allegations do not concern or raise issues of prohibited discrimination in housing. 

For example, there is no allegation in the complaint that Stockstill was discriminated against with 

her housing due to her race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability. 

Accordingly, Stockstill’s reference to the Fair Housing Act “appears to be immaterial and made 

solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction,” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co., 524 F.3d

at 1094, which in turn means the Fair Housing Act does not provide the Court with a basis for 

federal question subject-matter jurisdiction over Stockstill’s claims.

As for Stockstill’s reference in the complaint to the “Plain Language Act,” which possibly 

is a reference to the Plain Writing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-274, 124 Stat. 2861, the Court 

fails to find any connection between this law and Stockstill’s allegations. Accordingly, 

Stockstill’s reference to the “Plain Language Act” “appears to be immaterial and made solely for 

the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” and is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” Williston Basin 

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 19 of 22
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

20

Interstate Pipeline Co., 524 F.3d at 1094, which in turn means the “Plain Language Act” and the 

Plain Writing Act do not provide the Court with a basis for federal question subject-matter 

jurisdiction over Stockstill’s claims.

As for Stockstill’s reference in the complaint to 38 U.S.C. § 7316, this law applies to 

claims of malpractice or negligence of a health care employee of the Veterans Health 

Administration. But Stockstill’s allegations do not concern or raise issues of the Veterans Health 

Administration. Accordingly, Stockstill’s reference to 38 U.S.C. § 7316 “appears to be immaterial 

and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” and is “wholly insubstantial and 

frivolous,” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co., 524 F.3d at 1094, which in turn means 38 

U.S.C. § 7316 does not provide the Court with a basis for federal question subject-matter 

jurisdiction over Stockstill’s claims. 

As for Stockstill’s reference in the complaint to 41 U.S.C. § 6503, this law applies to 

breaches or violations of contracts made by agencies of the United States for the manufacture or 

furnishing of materials, supplies, articles, or equipment, in an amount exceeding $10,000. Cf. 41 

U.S.C. § 6502. But Stockstill’s allegations do not concern or raise issues about such contracts. 

Accordingly, Stockstill’s reference to 41 U.S.C. § 6503 appear to be “immaterial and made solely 

for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” and is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” Williston 

Basin Interstate Pipeline Co., 524 F.3d at 1094, which in turn means 41 U.S.C. § 6503 does not 

provide the Court with a basis for federal question subject-matter jurisdiction over Stockstill’s

claims. 

As for Stockstill’s reference in the complaint to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794 eq seq., this law prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in 

programs that receive federal financial assistance. Stockstill’s allegations suggest that Stockstill’s

son, Lupe, had a disability and, as a result, was on a “504 plan” at school. Presumably, although 

not alleged in the complaint, Stockstill’s children’s schools received federal financial assistance. 

But Stockstill’s allegations do not concern or raise issues of Lupe or Stockstill being discriminated 

against because of a disability. Thus, absent allegations of discrimination by a school because of a 

disability, Stockstill’s reference to Section 504 appears to be “immaterial and made solely for the 

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 20 of 22
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

21

purpose of obtaining jurisdiction,” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co., 524 F.3d at 1094, 

which in turn means Section 504 does not provide the Court with a basis for federal question

subject-matter jurisdiction over Stockstill’s claims. 

As for Stockstill’s reference in the complaint to claims arising under California statutes 

and common law, such laws clearly do not provide the Court with a basis for federal question 

subject-matter jurisdiction over Stockstill’s claims.

In sum, the complaint’s allegations fail to provide the Court with a basis for federal 

question subject-matter jurisdiction over Stockstill’s claims, and Stockstill has utterly failed in her 

oppositions to demonstrate otherwise. Consequently, Stockstill’s claims must be dismissed for 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Stockstill’s claims will be dismissed without prejudice. 

B. Other motions and defenses are moot.

As noted supra, there are other motions and defenses pending before the Court: namely, 

motions to dismiss Stockstill’s claims for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) and Rule 10(b), see

Doc. Nos. 23, 36, 47-1, 56; motions to dismiss Stockstill’s claims for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), see Doc. Nos. 23, 28-1, 30, 44-1, 47-1, 56, 

65-1; motions to dismiss Stockstill’s claims for insufficient process and insufficient service of 

process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4) and Rule 12(b)(5), see Doc. Nos. 40-1, 44-1; motions for a more 

definite statement of Stockstill’s claims pursuant to Rule 12(e), see Doc. Nos. 23, 36, 56, 65-1; a 

motion to strike redundant, immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous matter from Stockstill’s 

complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f), see Doc. No. 23; and Stockstill’s motions for entry of default 

and default judgment against Fresno Unified, see Doc. Nos. 33, 37.

Because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Stockstill’s claims, these other 

pending motions and defenses are moot and will be denied on that basis; the Court does not have 

jurisdiction to decide them. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946); Wright & Miller, 5B 

Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1350 (3d ed.) (citing cases).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 21 of 22
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

22

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The defendants’ motions to dismiss Stockstill’s claims for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) are GRANTED. 

2. The other pending motions and defenses pending before the Court (identified supra

in § III(B)) are DENIED as moot.

3. The hearing scheduled for Family HealthCare Network’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 

No. 65, is VACATED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00889-AWI-SKO Document 66 Filed 03/17/20 Page 22 of 22