Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01358/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01358-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen 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 

LIUDMYLA IEGOROVA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RENEE LOWDER, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:19-cv-1358-MCE-EFB PS 

ORDER 

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

 Her 

declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 3. 

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, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

 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 

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 2:19-cv-01358-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 03/18/20 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 

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). 

 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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

 The allegations in plaintiff’s complaint are limited. Liberally construed, plaintiff alleges 

that she went to the “office DHA” and requested defendant Renee Lower file “hearing documents 

for IHSS hours” and Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants benefits. ECF No. 1 at 2. 

Defendant Lower, however, ignored plaintiff’s request, thereby committing “crime conspiracy 

against [plaintiff’s] life, health, [and] private property” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. 

 These allegations are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Plaintiff only purports to assert a single claim under 18 U.S.C. § 241. That statute, however, is a 

criminal statute that does not provide a private right of action. See Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 

464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming the dismissal claims under 18 U.S.C. § 241 

because it is a “criminal statute[] that do not give rise to civil liability”). 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-01358-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 03/18/20 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 

 Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff 

is granted leave to file an amended complaint. 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). Any such complaint must allege a cognizable legal theory and 

sufficient facts in support of that cognizable legal theory. 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. It shall also 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 doublespaced 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 ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) is granted. 

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

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-01358-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 03/18/20 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 

 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: March 18, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-01358-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 03/18/20 Page 4 of 4