Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01167/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01167-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

MIRANDA MARSHALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASHLYN T. BERT DOWLING, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01167-KES-EPG

SCREENING ORDER DIRECTING 

PLAINTIFF TO:

(1) FILE A FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT; OR

(2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT PLAINTIFF

WANTS TO STAND ON THE COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 1)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Miranda Marshall proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action. 

(ECF Nos. 1, 4). Although it is difficult to understand, the complaint appears to allege that items 

were stolen from Plaintiff.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

and there appears to be no basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff now has options as to 

how to move forward. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, if Plaintiff believes that 

additional facts would a state cognizable claim. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the Court 

will screen that amended complaint in due course. 

Case 1:24-cv-01167-KES-EPG Document 5 Filed 10/09/24 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

Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a statement with the Court that Plaintiff wants to stand on 

this complaint and have it reviewed by the district judge, in which case the Court will issue 

findings and recommendations to a district judge consistent with this order.

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 4). The Court must dismiss a case that is frivolous or malicious, fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii).

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

Plaintiff lists five Defendants in the caption of the complaint: (1) Ashlyn T. Bert Dowling; 

(2) Keith Travelle Knox; (3) Kaytonja Bert; (4) Kelisa Ellis; and (5) Lascious Carter, Sr.1

Because Defendant Carter is not listed on the docket, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to 

update the docket.

1 Plaintiff’s handwriting is sometimes difficult to read. The Court has summarized Plaintiff’s allegations as 

best as it can understand them. Further, for readability, minor alterations have been made to quotations, 

such as changing capitalization, without indicating each change.

Case 1:24-cv-01167-KES-EPG Document 5 Filed 10/09/24 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

Plaintiff uses a standard complaint form, checking federal question for the basis of 

jurisdiction. However, Plaintiff fails to fill out the space on the form to explain the basis of 

federal question jurisdiction. 

Further, Plaintiff lists Plaintiff’s citizenship, along with two Defendants, as California, 

under the section of the form for diversity of citizenship.

2 Under the amount-in-controversy

portion of the form, Plaintiff lists various items, often with a corresponding price, and uses the 

phrase “items stolen,” e.g., Impala $1000-$2000, jewelry $300, food $1000, etc. 

Under the statement of claim, Plaintiff indicates that Defendant Ashlyn T. Bert Dowling is 

a con artist, prostitute, thief, and poisoner. In what may be additional factual allegations, Plaintiff 

writes in the margin of the complaint, “sedated by Ashlyn,” “abuse,” “video sent to me by 

herself,” and “now compromised by her.” 

In the relief section of the complaint, Plaintiff indicates, among other things, that Plaintiff 

has suffered psychological trauma, lost wages, and had money stolen. This section also states, 

“Her and Mr. Keith Travelle Knox played in group hate game.” 

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 Plaintiff’s rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77.

Plaintiff’s complaint is not a short and plain statement of claim. It is not clear what 

Plaintiff alleges and against whom. For example, to the extent that Plaintiff alleges the theft of 

any personal items, it is not clear who committed the theft. Notably, Plaintiff does not specify 

2 Plaintiff fails to provide the citizenship for the other Defendants.

Case 1:24-cv-01167-KES-EPG Document 5 Filed 10/09/24 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

which, if any, Defendant stole anything from Plaintiff, the circumstances surrounding any theft, 

and how such theft implicates any cognizable legal claim. Accordingly, the Court finds that 

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

B. Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

As best as the Court can tell, Plaintiff’s primary contention is that some Defendant has 

stolen from Plaintiff. But it does not appear that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over 

such a claim.

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “Article III, § 2, of the Constitution delineates [t]he character of 

the controversies over which federal judicial authority may extend. And lower federal-court 

jurisdiction is further limited to those subjects encompassed within a statutory grant of 

jurisdiction. Accordingly, the district courts may not exercise jurisdiction absent a statutory 

basis.” Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435, 437 (2019) (alteration in original) 

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

In 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a), Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction 

over two general types of cases: cases that aris[e] under federal law and cases in 

which the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000 and there is diversity of 

citizenship among the parties. These jurisdictional grants are known as federalquestion jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction, respectively. Each serves a distinct 

purpose: Federal-question jurisdiction affords parties a federal forum in which to 

vindicate federal rights, whereas diversity jurisdiction provides a neutral forum for 

parties from different States. 

Id. at 437-38 (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff 

“properly invokes” subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1331 when the plaintiff “pleads a colorable 

claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 

U.S. 500, 513 (2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Here, Plaintiff indicates that the basis for jurisdiction is federal law but fails to reasonably 

implicate any Federal constitutional right or statute. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff intends

to assert that the parties’ citizenship is diverse, all the addresses provided for the parties are in 

California and the amount in controversy does not appear to exceed $75,000.

\\\

Case 1:24-cv-01167-KES-EPG Document 5 Filed 10/09/24 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

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) and there appears 

to be no basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the court should freely give 

leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Accordingly, the Court will provide Plaintiff with 

time to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified above. Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within 

thirty days. 

If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint must allege 

violations under the law as discussed above. Plaintiff should note that although Plaintiff has been 

given the opportunity to amend, it is not for the purpose of changing the nature of this suit or 

adding unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” 

complaints). 

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Lacey v. 

Maricopa County, 693 F.3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and must be complete in 

itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading, Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an 

amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 

titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 

under penalty of perjury. 

Alternatively, Plaintiff may choose to stand on this complaint, in which case the Court 

will issue findings and recommendations to a district judge recommending dismissal of the action 

consistent with this order. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court shall add Lascious Carter, Sr. as a defendant on the docket. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a civil complaint form (Pro Se 1 Form).

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either:

a. File a First Amended Complaint; or

b. Notify the Court in writing that Plaintiff wants to stand on the complaint.

Case 1:24-cv-01167-KES-EPG Document 5 Filed 10/09/24 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

4. Should Plaintiff choose to amend the complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the amended 

complaint “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the case number 1:24-cv-01167-KESEPG.

5. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 9, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01167-KES-EPG Document 5 Filed 10/09/24 Page 6 of 6