Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01432/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01432-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEANLOUISE HALLAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEATHER MARDEL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01432-DAD-SAB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(ECF Nos. 1, 9)

ORDER DISREGARDING EXHIBITS

(ECF No. 10)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff Jeanlouise Hallal filed a complaint in this action. On 

October 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and exhibits.

I.

SCREENING

The district court must perform a preliminary screening and must dismiss a case if at any 

time the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners). In 

determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading standard 

Case 1:16-cv-01432-DAD-SAB Document 11 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 10
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

used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause 

of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

In reviewing the pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the pleadings and 

accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 

94 (2007). Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, 

a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[A] 

complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops 

short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Therefore, the complaint must contain sufficient 

factual content for the court to draw the reasonable conclusion that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

Similarly, the court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous when the facts alleged lack 

an arguable basis in law or in fact or embraces fanciful factual allegations. Neitzke v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Further, a claim can be dismissed where a complete defense is 

obvious on the face of the complaint. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff brings this action against judges, law enforcement officers, district attorneys, and 

other individuals stating this action is being removed from state court and the basis of federal 

jurisdiction are 18 U.S.C. § 3499; 18 U.S.C § 3331; 18 U.S.C § 1962; 18 U.S.C § 2381; 28 

U.S.C § 2403(B); 18 U.S.C § 241, 242; 5 U.S.C § 551; 17 C.F.R. § 230.14; F.R.C.P. 5.1; 

“DISRIGHT ‘under 4-502, 502/503/505 PIRACY; and the Geneva Convention. (ECF No. 1 at 

4-5.1) 

 

1 All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the 

CM/ECF electronic court docketing system.

Case 1:16-cv-01432-DAD-SAB Document 11 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 10
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

To the extent that the Court is able to understand the allegations in the complaint, 

Plaintiff contends that all defendants are guilty of municipal bond fraud on January 6, 2016. 

(ECF No. 1 at 6.) Plaintiff entered her home at 3272 East Olive in Fresno, California, which was 

prepaid by the government homeless housing grant fund. (Id.) It appears at the time that 

Plaintiff had been evicted from the residence and the locks had been changed. (Id. at 4, 6.) A

group of five adults removed Plaintiff from the home. (Id. at 6.) The police and EEOC Director 

had to wait for the supervising officer who arrested someone and took Plaintiff to jail. (Id.) 

On January 8, 2016, two female officers opened the cell and grabbed Plaintiff’s left arm 

and slammed her head into the mental bed frame causing injury because Judge Heather Mardel 

Jones put a warrant in the database and refused to release Plaintiff or remove the warrant from 

the database. (Id. at 6.) 

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to set forth any facts to state a cognizable federal claim. The 

Court shall grant Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies 

identified in this order. 

III.

DISCUSSION

Initially, Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

California a complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded 

pleading.” Local Rule 220. Further, the Court is not a repository of the parties evidence. 

Accordingly, the exhibits filed October 28, 2016 are disregarded.

A. Removal of Criminal Proceedings

Plaintiff’s complaint states that she is removing this action from state court and 

references two criminal case numbers. Therefore, it would appear that there are currently 

criminal cases pending against Plaintiff in state court. Plaintiff does not state the grounds for 

removal in her complaint. 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and their power to adjudicate is limited to 

that granted by Congress. U.S. v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2000); Exxon Mobil 

Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). There is a presumption against 

Case 1:16-cv-01432-DAD-SAB Document 11 Filed 11/02/16 Page 3 of 10
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

federal jurisdiction, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), and 

the party seeking removal has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus v. Miles, 

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 

There are only narrow and limited grounds upon which a state prosecution can be 

removed to federal court. Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a) and 1442a, any officer of the United 

States or its courts, any officer of either House of Congress, or any member of the U.S. armed 

forces that is subject to criminal prosecution may remove such an action that arises from acts 

done under color of such office or status. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a), 1442a. Plaintiff’s 

complaint does not allege that she is a federal official being prosecuted for actions taken under 

color of such authority. It appears from the complaint that the charges against Plaintiff are 

related to her attempt to reenter property from which she was evicted.

Additionally, a defendant who is being prosecuted in state court may remove an action to 

federal court if she seeks to assert a defense based upon federal laws protecting equal civil rights 

but is unable to because of state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1443. A petition for removal under section 

1443 must satisfy a two-part test: 1) in defense to the prosecution the petitioner must assert 

“rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil 

rights[;]” and 2) the petitioner “must assert that the state courts will not enforce that right, and 

that allegation must be supported by reference to a state statute or a constitutional provision that 

purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights.” Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 

F.3d 996, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has not asserted that in defense of the criminal 

action she is asserting her equal civil rights. Further, assuming that such could be implied from 

her complaint, Plaintiff does not point to any state statute or constitutional provision that 

commands the state court to ignore her federal rights. 

Additionally, in order to remove a state court prosecution, the defendant in the criminal 

action must comply with the procedure set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1455 which requires “a notice of 

removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules and containing a short and plain 

statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders 

served upon such defendant or defendants in such action.” Plaintiff has not included a statement 

Case 1:16-cv-01432-DAD-SAB Document 11 Filed 11/02/16 Page 4 of 10
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

of the grounds for removal or copies of all process, pleadings and orders served upon her in the 

criminal action. Therefore, Plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of section 1455. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any federal ground to provide for removal of her criminal 

prosecution in this instance nor has she complied with section 1455 to properly remove this 

action. Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff’s pleading as a civil complaint.

B. Title 18

Plaintiff seeks to invoke federal jurisdiction by alleging violations of various sections of 

Title 18 of the United States Code. Title 18 of the United States Code codifies statutory crimes 

and criminal procedure. The fact that a federal statute has been violated does not automatically 

give rise to a private right of action. Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 568 

(1979). In determining whether a private right of action exists, the court is to determine whether 

Congress intended to create a private right of action. Id. Therefore, unless a specific statute 

provides for a private right of action, courts have found that violations of Title 18 are properly 

brought by the United States government through criminal proceedings and not by individuals in 

a civil action. Abou–Hussein v. Gates, 657 F.Supp.2d 77, 79 (D.D.C.2009); Prunte v. Universal 

Music Grp., 484 F. Supp. 2d 32, 42 (D.D.C. 2007); Smith v. Gerber, 64 F.Supp.2d 784, 787 

(N.D. Ill. 1999). 

1. No Private Right of Action

Plaintiff seeks to bring this action pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 2381, and 

3499. Review of these statutes demonstrates that they do not provide for a private right of 

action. 

Conspiring to deprive an individual of their constitutional rights is addressed in 18 U.S.C 

§ 241. A violation of section 241 is punished by fine or imprisonment of not more than 10 years. 

18 U.S.C. § 241. Depriving a person of their rights under the color of law is codified in 18 

U.S.C. § 242 which makes it unlawful to deprive any person of his constitutional rights because 

of the person’s alienage, color or race. Violation of section 242 is punished by fine or 

imprisonment of not more than one year, or more if specified circumstances exist. 18 U.S.C. § 

242. Contempt of court by a witness is addressed by 18 U.S.C. § 3499 which codifies 

Case 1:16-cv-01432-DAD-SAB Document 11 Filed 11/02/16 Page 5 of 10
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

“[d]isobedience of a subpoena without excuse as contempt.” 

Treason is defined by 18 U.S.C § 2381, which provides “[w]hoever, owing allegiance to 

the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and 

comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall 

be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and 

shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” 

Plaintiff cannot bring suit against defendant for violation of these sections of Title 18 as 

they do not provide for a private right of action. See Salem v. Arakawa, No. CV 15-00384 LEKKSC, 2016 WL 1043050, at *6 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2016) (“It is well-established that ‘Plaintiffs, 

as private citizens, lack standing to bring claims under criminal statutes’). 

2. RICO

Plaintiff also alleges violations of 18 U.S.C § 1962. The Racketeer Influenced and 

Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, which was passed in 1970 as Title XI of the Organized 

Crime Control Act, provides for both criminal and civil liability for certain prohibited activities. 

Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541, 545 (9th Cir. 2007). 

To state a civil claim under RICO, “a plaintiff must show ‘(1) conduct (2) of an 

enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity,’ ” Rezner v. Bayerische Hypo-Und 

Vereinsbank AG, 630 F.3d 866, 873 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 

Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985)), with the conspiracy claim being necessarily dependent upon the 

existence of the substantive RICO violation, Sanford v. Memberworks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 559 

(9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff must show that the racketeering activity was both a but-for and 

proximate cause of his injury to have standing to bring a claim. Hemi Group, LLC v. City of 

New York, N.Y., 559 U.S. 1, 9 (2010). To meet the proximate cause requirement there must be 

“some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.” Rezner, 

630 F.3d at 873 (quoting Holmes v. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268 (1992)). This 

requires the court to examine the alleged violation to determine if it led directly to plaintiff’s 

injuries. Canyon County v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 519 F.3d 969, 982 (9th Cir. 2008).

The focus of RICO is racketeering activity which is defined “as a number of specific 

Case 1:16-cv-01432-DAD-SAB Document 11 Filed 11/02/16 Page 6 of 10
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

criminal acts under federal and state laws.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1); Canyon County, 519 F.3d at 

972. Two predicate acts within a period of ten years are required to show a pattern of 

racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5); Canyon County, 519 F.3d at 972. Plaintiff does not 

allege which prohibited activities she is contending were violated by the acts alleged in the 

complaint. Nor does the complaint allege a pattern of racketeering activity by any defendant. 

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a plausible claim for a violation of RICO. 

C. Miscellaneous Statutes

Plaintiff references 28 U.S.C § 1403(B) which addresses proceedings to condemn 

property for the use of the United States. Plaintiff’s complaint contains no allegations that 

property is seeking to be condemned for use by the United States, its agencies or departments. 

Plaintiff also cites to 5 U.S.C. 3331 which sets forth the oath of office for an elected or appointed 

official. Plaintiff sets forth multiple other citations to statutes or rules that are equally irrelevant 

to the claims he sets forth in her complaint. 

Plaintiff’s complaint contains vague and conclusory allegations of wrongdoing that fail to 

state a cognizable claim against any defendant named in this action.

D. Leave to Amend

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s 

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent 

of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(2). 

Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies 

identified in this order. Plaintiff is advised that if she opts to amend, her amended complaint 

should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although Plaintiff’s factual allegations will be accepted as 

true and “the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ 

” “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.’ ” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to 

Case 1:16-cv-01432-DAD-SAB Document 11 Filed 11/02/16 Page 7 of 10
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

8

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

With respect to exhibits, while they are permissible if incorporated by reference, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 10(c), they are not necessary in the federal system of notice pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a). In other words, it is not necessary at this stage to submit evidence to prove the allegations 

in Plaintiff’s complaint because at this stage Plaintiff’s factual allegations will be accepted as 

true.

The Court advises Plaintiff of the following requirements under the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure regarding the general formatting of his complaint. “Each allegation must be 

simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Additionally, to state a claim Plaintiff must 

set forth the relief requested. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3). A party must state its claims or defenses in 

numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 10(b). “[E]ach claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be 

stated in a separate count.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 

Currently, the basis of federal jurisdiction is unclear, as well as what specific claims 

Plaintiff is attempting to allege in this action. In her amended complaint, Plaintiff is required to 

set forth the specific claim including the basis for federal jurisdiction and the specific acts of the 

named defendants that demonstrate a violation of her federal rights. Plaintiff’s complaint may 

not contain any citation to case law or legal argument. The only statutory references shall be 

for the specific claims alleged and must include sufficient factual allegations to demonstrate a 

violation of the statute. If Plaintiff fails to do, so this action will be dismissed without leave to 

amend. 

Plaintiff’s complaint must also comply with Rule 18 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. 

Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff may bring a claim against multiple 

defendants so long as (1) the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of 

transactions and occurrences, and (2) there are commons questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. 

Case 1:16-cv-01432-DAD-SAB Document 11 Filed 11/02/16 Page 8 of 10
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

9

P. 20(a)(2); Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997); Desert Empire Bank v. 

Insurance Co. of North America, 623 F.3d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). Only if the defendants 

are properly joined under Rule 20(a) will the Court review other claims to determine if they may 

be joined under Rule 18(a), which permits the joinder of multiple claims against the same party.

Finally, Plaintiff is required to submit filings that are “clearly legible.” Local Rule 

130(b). In submitting an amended complaint in compliance with this order, Plaintiff is advised 

that the complaint must be double spaced and use letters no smaller than used in the instant 

order, Times New Roman 12, and any amended pleading may not exceed twenty-five pages in 

length. 

IV.

APPLICATION TO PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action 

and finds that it demonstrates entitlement to proceed without prepayment of fees. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees shall be granted. Notwithstanding 

this order, the Court does not direct that service be undertaken until the Court screens any 

amended complaint filed in this action and issues its screening order.

V.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed September 26, 2016, is DISMISSED with leave to 

amend;

3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of 

service of this order; and

//

//

//

//

Case 1:16-cv-01432-DAD-SAB Document 11 Filed 11/02/16 Page 9 of 10
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

10

4. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint in compliance with this order this 

action shall be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01432-DAD-SAB Document 11 Filed 11/02/16 Page 10 of 10