Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01980/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01980-0/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANN ZHAI,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARKSTEIN BEVERAGE COMPANY, 

et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-1980 JAM DB PS

ORDER

Plaintiff Ann Zhai proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the 

undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending 

before the court are plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Therein, plaintiff complains about being injured in a traffic 

accident. 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma 

pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 

2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons stated 

below, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed and plaintiff will be granted leave to file an 

amended complaint. 

////

Case 2:19-cv-01980-JAM-DB Document 3 Filed 03/31/20 Page 1 of 7
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

I. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the financial showing required by 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 

pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed 

complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 

1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th 

Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Department of Child Support Services, 584 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee’s request to proceed 

IFP because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that McGee’s action is frivolous 

or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the 

District Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine 

whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, 

the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). 

Moreover, the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of 

poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an 

arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. 

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a 

complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the 

factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

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.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as 

true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. 

Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 

Case 2:19-cv-01980-JAM-DB Document 3 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 7
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

(9th Cir. 1989). 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).

The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a 

short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s 

jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for 

judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

II. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Here, plaintiff’s complaint fails to contain a short and plain statement of a claim showing 

that plaintiff is entitled to relief. In this regard, the complaint alleges that on October 10, 2017, a 

driver for defendant Markstein Beverage Company and plaintiff were involved in a traffic 

accident. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 1.) “Since then, a whole host of legal issues from this incident 

have been uncovered.” (Id.) The complaint proceeds to identify nine defendants ranging from 

the driver of the vehicle, the healthcare provider responsible for plaintiff’s medical care, the tire 

manufacturer, the vehicle manufacturer, gasoline refineries, and the United States of America. 

Over 65 pages the complaint asserts hundreds of causes of action against the defendants in a 

vague and conclusory manner.

For example, the complaint alleges that defendant Bridgestone was “negligent by 

drugging and/or poisoning with a whole host of toxins and carcinogens[.]” (Id. at 51.) That 

“Refineries, distributors, and sellers, are negligent by drugging and/or poisoning living human 

beings with MMT-NO via consumer mobile sources[.]” (Id. at 39.) That defendant Dignity

Healthcare was “criminally or recklessly negligent by preauthorizing, billing, and collecting 

payment in advance by placing accounting/finance person stationing in the ER with patients[.]” 

(Id. at 10.) The complaint is composed entirely of these vague and conclusory allegations without 

providing any factual allegations in support.

//// 

Case 2:19-cv-01980-JAM-DB Document 3 Filed 03/31/20 Page 3 of 7
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

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a 

complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and must allege facts that 

state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v. 

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “A pleading that offers ‘labels 

and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.’ Nor 

does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual 

enhancements.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555,

557). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the 

defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649.

The complaint also alleges that the “United States of America is named as a co-defendant 

based on [the] Federal Torts Claim Act.” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 4.) An action based on the 

negligent or wrongful conduct of a government employee must be brought against the United 

States as a claim pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, (“FTCA”). 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680; 

see also Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Service, 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (“the United States 

is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action”). The FTCA “vests the federal district 

courts with exclusive jurisdiction over suits arising from the negligence of Government 

employees.” Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 518 (9th Cir. 1992).

However, “[t]he timely filing of an administrative claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite to 

the bringing of a suit under the FTCA and, as such, should be affirmatively alleged in the 

complaint.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 640 (9th Cir. 1980). Here, the complaint does 

not allege that plaintiff filed an administrative claim in connection with this action.

Moreover, “[a] claimant must present a tort claim against the United States in writing to 

the appropriate Federal agency within two years after injury.” Krueger v. Saiki, 19 F.3d 1285, 

1286 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)); see also Hensley v. U.S., 531 F.3d 1052, 1056 

(9th Cir. 2008) (“the statute provides that a tort claim ‘shall be forever barred’ unless it is 

presented ‘within two years after such claim accrues’”). “The general rule, within the meaning of 

the FTCA is that a tort claim accrues at the time of the plaintiff’s injury[.]” Attallah v. U.S., 955 

F.2d 776, 779 (1st Cir. 1992). 

Case 2:19-cv-01980-JAM-DB Document 3 Filed 03/31/20 Page 4 of 7
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

Here, although the complaint does not allege any factual allegations with respect to the 

FTCA, it does allege that the government granted “fuel additive certificate waivers[.]” (Id.) 

Those waivers were likely granted many years before this action commenced. Plaintiff is 

cautioned that the FTCA explicitly states that a “tort claim against the United States shall be

forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two years 

after such claim accrues[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) (emphasis added). 

III. Leave to Amend

For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The undersigned 

has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend the complaint to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, 

prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 

1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 

701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the 

court does not have to allow futile amendments). 

However, when evaluating the failure to state a claim, the complaint of a pro se plaintiff 

may be dismissed “only where ‘it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts 

in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 

1228 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972)); see also Weilburg v. 

Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to 

amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be 

cured by amendment.”) (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 

1988)).

Here, given the vague and conclusory nature of the complaint’s allegations the 

undersigned cannot yet say that it appears beyond doubt that leave to amend would be futile. 

Plaintiff’s complaint will therefore be dismissed, and plaintiff will be granted leave to file an 

amended complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that if plaintiff elects to file an amended 

complaint “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint 

is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

Case 2:19-cv-01980-JAM-DB Document 3 Filed 03/31/20 Page 5 of 7
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

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. “While 

legal conclusions can provide the complaint’s framework, they must be supported by factual 

allegations.” Id. at 679. Those facts must be sufficient to push the claims “across the line from 

conceivable to plausible[.]” Id. at 680 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

Plaintiff is also reminded that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an 

amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended complaint be complete 

in itself without reference to prior pleadings. The amended complaint will supersede the original 

complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, in an amended complaint, 

just as if it were the initial complaint filed in the case, each defendant must be listed in the caption 

and identified in the body of the complaint, and each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Any amended complaint which plaintiff may elect to file

must also include concise but complete factual allegations describing the conduct and events 

which underlie plaintiff’s claims.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The complaint filed September 30, 2019 (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to 

amend.1

2. Within sixty days from the date of this order, an amended complaint shall be filed that 

cures the defects noted in this order and complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

the Local Rules of Practice.2 The amended complaint must bear the case number assigned to this 

action and must be titled “Amended Complaint.” The amended complaint shall not exceed 

twenty-five pages in length.

////

////

1 Plaintiff need not file another application to proceed in forma pauperis at this time unless 

plaintiff’s financial condition has improved since the last such application was submitted.

2 Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action plaintiff may file a notice of 

voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:19-cv-01980-JAM-DB Document 3 Filed 03/31/20 Page 6 of 7
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

7

3. Failure to comply with this order in a timely manner may result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed.

DATED: March 30, 2020 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-01980-JAM-DB Document 3 Filed 03/31/20 Page 7 of 7