Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00009/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00009-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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 

EGOROV DMITRIY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KUCHUK VLADISLAVA, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:20-cv-00009 JAM AC PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE 

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned 

by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. 

ECF No. 2. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

I. SCREENING 

A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 

complete the inquiry required by the statute. The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to 

dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the 

complaint is frivolous, by drafting the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint 

Case 2:20-cv-00009-DAD-AC Document 3 Filed 01/16/20 Page 1 of 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 

2 

must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the 

reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement 

showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and 

(3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth 

simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 

court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 

are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 

Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 

denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 

The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 

states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 

must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 

less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 

(1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 

inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 

624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 

to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must 

allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 

opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See 

Case 2:20-cv-00009-DAD-AC Document 3 Filed 01/16/20 Page 2 of 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 

3 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as 

stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 

II. COMPLAINT 

 On January 2, 2020, Egorov Dmitriy1 filed this action pursuant to a section of the U.S. 

Criminal Code, 18 USC § 241. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges defendant follows him in stores with 

his cell phone with private questions. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff alleges defendant is part of a 

British-Russian conspiracy involving Xavier Becerra, and that defendant called 911 to report 

abuse by her son, making a reference to eating tuna fish in cans.. Id. Plaintiff seeks 999 trillion 

dollars in damages. Id. Plaintiff alleges federal question jurisdiction and does not expressly state 

the citizenship of either himself or defendant. ECF No. 1 at 3. 

III. THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION and the COMPLAINT is FRIVOLOUS 

A federal court has an independent duty to assess whether federal subject matter 

jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. 

Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 

F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). The court must sua sponte dismiss the case if, at any time, it 

determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

Here, plaintiff sues exclusively under the criminal code. A citizen does not have authority 

to bring criminal charges. “Criminal proceedings, unlike private civil proceedings, are public acts 

initiated and controlled by the Executive Branch.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 718 (1997). 

Accordingly, Title 18 of the United States Code does not establish any private right of action and 

cannot support a civil lawsuit. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) 

(criminal provisions provide no basis for civil liability). Because plaintiff’s complaint does not 

contain any viable federal cause of action and because both plaintiff and defendant are alleged to 

be California citizens, there is no basis for federal jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 

 

1

 Plaintiff brings this complaint as “Egorov Dmitriy” though the court notes that the complaint 

follows the pattern of Dmitriy Yegorov, a litigant who frequently files in the Eastern District of 

California, who has been repeatedly cautioned that he cannot bring a claim under the criminal 

code. Indeed, Mr. Dmitriy is assumed to be Mr. Yegorov in a recent order to show cause 

regarding vexatious litigant status issued in another pending case. See Dmitriy v. Bella, 2:20-cv00010 TLN KJN, ECF No. 3 at 2, n.1. 

Case 2:20-cv-00009-DAD-AC Document 3 Filed 01/16/20 Page 3 of 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 

4 

1332. Dismissal with prejudice is further supported by the fact that the complaint is clearly 

frivolous, lacking any basis in law or fact. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. 

Although the court ordinarily grants leave to amend with great liberality, especially to pro 

se litigants, the nature of plaintiff’s complaint here compels the conclusion that granting leave to 

amend would be futile. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Because there is an incurable lack of jurisdiction over this dispute and because the complaint is 

frivolous, the case must be dismissed with prejudice. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction and frivolity; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be DENIED as moot; and 

3. This case be closed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 

158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

DATED: January 15, 2020 

Case 2:20-cv-00009-DAD-AC Document 3 Filed 01/16/20 Page 4 of 4