Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02510/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02510-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GREG ROBINSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHELLE ESPINOZA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2510-EFB 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.1 His 

declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 2. 

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

 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. As discussed 

below, the complaint fails to establish this court’s jurisdiction and therefore must be dismissed. 

///// 

///// 

 1

 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the 

undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:14-cv-02510-JAM-EFB Document 12 Filed 01/12/16 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

 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 

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 jurisdiction 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 

Case 2:14-cv-02510-JAM-EFB Document 12 Filed 01/12/16 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

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 

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). 

 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that a few years prior to initiating this action, he opened a 

Visa Direct Deposit account with Netspend Corporation at the recommendation of Ace Cash 

Express. ECF No. 1 at 1. He used the account to deposit his monthly social security checks. Id. 

at 1-2. In March 2013, plaintiff was arrested and subsequently incarcerated. Id. at 2. He claims 

that prior to his incarceration he had more than $3,000 in the account. Id. However, he was 

notified in May 2013 that the account had a negative balance. Id. He claims that there “should be 

money in this account” and that he wants “the missing money accounted for and forwarded to” 

him. Id. He further alleges that he has sent several letters to Ace Cash Express, Netspend 

Corporation, and Meta Bank concerning his account, but has not received a response explaining 

what happened to his money. Id. at 6-8. 

 It is unclear from plaintiff’s complaint whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction 

over plaintiff’s claim(s), since the complaint does not allege any specific claims for relief. 

Plaintiff contends that this court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332; however, 

the court is unable to determine whether complete diversity is present. As an initial matter, it is 

not clear which individual or entity plaintiff is attempting to sue. The complaint formally names 

Michelle Espinoza, Customer Experience Project Manager of Netspend Corporation, but does not 

contain any allegations concerning this named defendant. The complaint only discusses conduct 

by Ace Cash Express, Netspend Corporation, and Meta Bank, but it is unclear which of these 

entities, if any, plaintiff intends to be included as defendants. The complaint also does not allege 

facts to establish the citizenship of any of the potential defendants discussed in the complaint. 

See ECF No. 1 at 16. More significantly, the amount in controversy in this case appears to be 

approximately $3,000, far less than the $75,000 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Thus, the 

Case 2:14-cv-02510-JAM-EFB Document 12 Filed 01/12/16 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

complaint does not establish diversity jurisdiction. Furthermore, it is not clear how the facts 

alleged in the complaint give rise to a federal claim. 

 Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed. However, plaintiff is granted leave to 

file an amended complaint, if he can allege a basis for this court’s jurisdiction, as well as a 

cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant and sufficient facts in support of that 

cognizable legal theory. 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 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-02510-JAM-EFB Document 12 Filed 01/12/16 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

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 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. 

 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 “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 11, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-02510-JAM-EFB Document 12 Filed 01/12/16 Page 5 of 5