Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01266/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01266-1/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

DAVID WAYNE TALENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT 

SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-01266-DJC-CSK

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF Nos. 1, 2, 10, 15)

Plaintiff David Wayne Talent is representing himself in this action and seeks leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 2.) 

Plaintiff’s application in support of the IFP request makes the required financial showing. 

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP request.

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 

proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to 

state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a 

defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an 

1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 

Case 2:24-cv-01266-DJC-CSK Document 21 Filed 12/04/24 Page 1 of 6
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

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 accepts as true the factual 

allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 

construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 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).

Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 

F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal). 

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 Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 

F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).

II. THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff’s Complaint uses the fillable form complaint and names the following 

defendants: “Department of Homeland Security”, “Sacramento Department of Child 

Support”, “[t]he State Department”, and “Department Health and Human Services”. 

Compl. at 2 (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff asserts federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 3. However, 

when asked to list the basis for federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff states: “There is no 

federal government – Can not report to or speak to.” Id. The brief factual allegations are

Case 2:24-cv-01266-DJC-CSK Document 21 Filed 12/04/24 Page 2 of 6
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

vague and incoherent. For his short and plain statement of his claim(s), Plaintiff states, 

the following: 

Federal government gone, State government limited, low 

level communication only. County access only, blocked by 

police and Sherriff’s department. Employment blocked, bank 

accounts blocked, internet blocked, all communications 

blocked, phones communication through some sort of central 

hub blocking communications, Child Support attacking 

income, cell completely attacked and or threatened, State 

ID’s being taken, mail being filtered and blocked, verbal 

attack being implemented, proof provided in all case files. 

Id. at 4. In addition, Plaintiff alleges he was denied the right to file paperwork in federal 

court; has been unable to contact the “FBI[,] Homeland[,] NSA[,] and even Washington 

DC”; has been “under attack”; the “superior court is blocked by low level police and 

sheriff employer’s”’; currently hold[s] $100,000,000 in default judgments from state and 

federal agencies”; filed a “human rights claim with the UN”; and the “current govt is trying 

to erase my existence for possible monetary value.” Id. at 7-9. Plaintiff also attaches 

140-pages of miscellaneous and convoluted documents. Id. at 6, 10-140. For example, 

Plaintiff includes filings from state court relating to kidnapping allegations and what 

appears to be criminal charges (ECF No. 1 at 6, 21-23); filings relating to requests for 

default in Sacramento County and the United States District Court for the Eastern District 

of Northern Carolina (ECF No. 1 at 16-20, 57-59, 61-72); filings from Onslow County 

Superior Court in North Carolina in what appears to be a child support action (ECF No. 1 

at 31-33, 54). For relief, Plaintiff appears to allege he is owed “$75,000,000 in Federal 

and State Default judgment.” Id. 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may hear only those cases 

authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 

Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry, and “[f]ederal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, 

‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 

1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 

Case 2:24-cv-01266-DJC-CSK Document 21 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 6
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

(1986)); see Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 

F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Without jurisdiction, the district court cannot decide the 

merits of a case or order any relief and must dismiss the case. See Morongo, 858 F.2d 

at 1380. A federal court’s jurisdiction may be established in one of two ways: actions 

arising under federal law or those between citizens of different states in which the 

alleged damages exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. “Subject-matter jurisdiction 

can never be waived or forfeited,” and “courts are obligated to consider sua sponte” 

subject matter jurisdiction even when not raised by the parties. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 

U.S. 134, 141 (2012).

The Complaint fails to establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See 

Compl. The Complaint states no basis for federal court jurisdiction, and none is 

apparent. No federal cause of action is asserted, and no federal claims are suggested by 

the facts, to the extent the facts are discernible. Therefore, the Court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction based on federal question.

In addition, the Complaint fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. Although Plaintiff 

states the amount in controversy is $75 million, Plaintiff fails to establish that there is 

complete diversity of citizenship. At least one defendant, like Plaintiff, is a citizen of 

California. See Compl. at 2 (naming Defendant Sacramento Department of Child 

Support). The Court notes that although Plaintiff stated in the Complaint he is a citizen of 

North Carolina (Compl. at 1), Plaintiff’s recent address change indicates he now resides 

in Auburn, California. See ECF No. 16; see Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 

1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; 

each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.”).

Because there is no diversity of citizenship established here, the Court finds that it also 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity jurisdiction. 

B. Failure to Comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim as 

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In order to give fair notice of the claims 

Case 2:24-cv-01266-DJC-CSK Document 21 Filed 12/04/24 Page 4 of 6
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

and the grounds on which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of 

particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v. 

Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court is unable to discern what causes 

of action Plaintiff intends to bring. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading 

policy, even a pro se litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a 

claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 

(9th Cir. 1984).

The Complaint therefore fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and 

is subject to dismissal. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot determine from the complaint who is 

being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”).

C. Leave to Amend

In considering whether leave to amend should be granted, the Court finds that the 

Complaint consists entirely of allegations with no basis in law and no plausible 

supporting facts. See generally Compl. The Complaint does not contain facts supporting 

any cognizable legal claim against any defendant. The contents of the Complaint are 

sufficiently unintelligible that leave to amend in this case would not be fruitful. In light of 

the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the Complaint’s deficiencies, granting 

leave to amend would be futile. The Complaint should therefore be dismissed without 

leave to amend. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 

1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995).

IV. MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff has also filed two motions for an extension of time to serve the summons 

and Complaint. (ECF Nos. 10, 15.) These motions are denied as moot because the 

Complaint must be screened prior to service of the Complaint. 

/ / / 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:24-cv-01266-DJC-CSK Document 21 Filed 12/04/24 Page 5 of 6
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

V. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 

and

2. Plaintiff’s requests for extension of time (ECF Nos. 10, 15) are DENIED.

In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Complaint be dismissed without leave 

to amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and where 

amendment would be futile.

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)(1). Within 

14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should 

be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 

reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14

days after service of the objections. 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).

Dated: December 3, 2024

4, talen1266.24

Case 2:24-cv-01266-DJC-CSK Document 21 Filed 12/04/24 Page 6 of 6