Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01886/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01886-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DMITRIY YEGOROV, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CONSULATE OF UKRAINE IN SAN 

FRANSCISCO, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-1886-KJM-EFB PS 

ORDER 

 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, was referred to the undersigned under 

Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. His affidavit demonstrates that his is 

unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. ECF No. 2. Accordingly, the request to 

proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

 Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required 

inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the 

allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 

 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 

Case 2:14-cv-01886-KJM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 5
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

fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 

(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 

his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 

a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are 

true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 

legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations 

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), 

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the 

plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy 

the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) 

“requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds 

upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing 

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

 Additionally, a federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only 

those cases authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic federal jurisdictional statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, 

confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction 

requires that the complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a 

“case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be 

authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal 

jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity 

jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the 

matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World 

Case 2:14-cv-01886-KJM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/06/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction 

of the federal courts unless demonstrated otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys 

Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). 

 The complaint alleges that plaintiff’s two children were kidnapped by a member of an 

“American gang citizen USA” and Melnichuk Nelya, a citizen of Ukraine. ECF No. 1 at 2. 

Plaintiff claims that he contacted the Consulate General of the Ukraine in San Francisco, Mr. 

Nikolaychuck, to request that he investigate the kidnapping of his children. Id. Mr. 

Nikolaychuck allegedly failed to respond to plaintiff’s requests for an investigation. Plaintiff 

contends that the failure to investigate violated international law; specifically, “Consular 

Convention signed USSR AND USA in June 1, 1964, section 12,” which plaintiff attached as 

exhibit 1 to his complaint. The section relied upon by plaintiff provides that “A consular officer 

shall have the right within his district to meet with, communicate with, and advise any national of 

the sending state and, where necessary, arrange for legal assistance for him. The receiving state 

shall in no way restrict the access of nationals of the sending state to its consular establishment.” 

Id. at 19 (Ex. 1). 

 Plaintiff’s claim(s) against the Consulate of Ukraine appears to be barred by the Foreign 

Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), which provides that “a foreign state shall be immune from 

the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in” the 

FSIA. 28 U.S.C. § 1604. “Under the Act, a foreign state is presumptively immune from the 

jurisdiction of the United States courts; unless a specified exception applies, a federal court lacks 

subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim against a foreign state.” Embassy of the Arab Republic of 

Egypt v. Lasheen, 603 F.3d 1166, 1969 (9th Cir. 2010). “Once a party offers evidence that an 

FSIA exception to immunity applies, the party claiming immunity bears the burden of proving by 

a preponderance of the evidence that the exception does not apply.” Id. 

 Plaintiff does not establish that any of the exceptions enumerated in the FSIA apply to the 

instant action. Accordingly, the complaint fails to establish this court’s jurisdiction. See 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1605-1607. Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. However, plaintiff is 

Case 2:14-cv-01886-KJM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/06/16 Page 3 of 5
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

granted leave to file an amended complaint that establishes this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro 

se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints). Should 

plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint shall clearly set forth the 

allegations against defendant and shall specify a basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 

Any amended complaint shall plead plaintiff’s claims in “numbered paragraphs, each limited as 

far as practicable to a single set of circumstances,” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

10(b), and shall be in double-spaced text on paper that bears line numbers in the left margin, as 

required by Eastern District of California Local Rules 130(b) and 130(c). Any amended 

complaint shall also use clear headings to delineate each claim alleged and against which 

defendant or defendants the claim is alleged, as required by Rule 10(b), and must plead clear facts 

that support each claim under each header. 

 Additionally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to 

make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 

complete in itself. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the 

original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, once 

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves any function in the case. 

Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not 

alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 

1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to 

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order 

may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See Local Rule 110. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted 

 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as provided herein. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-01886-KJM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/06/16 Page 4 of 5
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

 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must 

be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to timely file an amended complaint in 

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed. 

DATED: January 6, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-01886-KJM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/06/16 Page 5 of 5