Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01875/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01875-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT C. LYON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1875 LKK DAD PS

v.

THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO., et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se in this action, has requested leave to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The proceeding has been referred to the undersigned in

accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 72-302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

A filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil action in a federal district

court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The district court may authorize the commencement of an action

“without prepayment of fees or security therefor” by an individual who submits an affidavit

demonstrating his inability to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Here, plaintiff declares that he is not employed, that Social Security Disability

benefits comprised his sole source of income during the twelve months preceding the filing of

this action, that he has no cash or bank accounts, and that he does not own any real estate or other

valuable property. However, plaintiff’s statement regarding real estate appears to be inconsistent

Case 2:07-cv-01875-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 12/06/07 Page 1 of 5
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

 In the present case, the named defendants include two judges and several administrative 1

hearing officers. In general, judicial officers are entitled to absolute judicial immunity. See

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-10 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978);

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967); Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965-

68 (9th Cir. 1999); Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 866-67 (9th Cir. 1992).

2

with the allegations of his complaint regarding ownership of two parcels of real estate in

Sacramento. Notwithstanding this inconsistency, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s statements

concerning income, cash, and bank accounts demonstrate inability to prepay the $350.00 filing

fee.

The determination that a party is unable to prepay the filing fee does not complete

the inquiry required by the federal in forma pauperis statute. A case in which the plaintiff seeks

to proceed in forma pauperis must be dismissed if the court determines that the action is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary

relief against parties entitled to immunity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). To state a claim on which 1

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, U.S. , , 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974

(2007).

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading must contain “a short and

plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Federal 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 (1986)). This is so because federal courts are courts of limited

jurisdiction and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by federal Constitution and statute. 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S.

131, 136-37 (1992). The judicial power of the United States is vested in “one Supreme Court,

and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” U.S.

Const. Art. III, § 1. Congress has conferred jurisdiction upon federal district courts, as limited by

Case 2:07-cv-01875-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 12/06/07 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Article III, § 2. See 28 U.S.C. § 132. See also Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 697-99

(1992). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court or by any party at any time

during the proceedings. See Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593,

594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting

jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.

The basic federal jurisdiction statutes are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, which

confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal jurisdiction may also

be conferred by federal statutes regulating specific subject matter. See generally W.W.

Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J. Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 2:5.

Here, plaintiff’s complaint bears the title “Charges of Claim,” followed by a list of

29 claims: fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, fraud in the inducement, fraud in factum

distinguished, fraud by deceit, collusion and ID fraud, criminal fraud, actual and constructive

legal fraud, constructive fraud, intrinsic and extrinsic fraud, fraud claim based on real estate

sales, identity fraud of property or person, damages for loss of personal property, injury, damage

to credit line, selective enforcement, loss of wages, permanent disabling of plaintiff,

discrimination and hate crimes, stalking of plaintiff to do bodily harm, illegal use of

governmental power and illegal force violating plaintiff’s rights, destruction of use of property at

2290 and 2300 Traction Avenue in Sacramento for years, illegal removal of personal property

without personal service, continual fraud by city and county, slander, general negligence,

fraudulent document filed, and leaving public in danger. (Compl. at 1-2.)

The defendants include the City of Sacramento, the County of Sacramento,

various city and county offices, numerous individual city and county employees, a former owner

of the real estate at issue and that person’s attorney, the mayor of the City of Sacramento, two

city council members, unspecified contractors acting for the city, a title company, the Sacramento

County Superior Court, two judges of the superior court, and Does 1-1000. (Id.)

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01875-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Plaintiff’s suit arises from code enforcement actions taken by the City of

Sacramento against plaintiff from 1988 to the present. The County of Sacramento has recently

taken steps to sell plaintiff’s property for the purpose of satisfying unpaid fees charged against

the property by the City for recovery of code enforcement costs. By the complaint filed in this

court, plaintiff seeks 500 million dollars in damages.

Plaintiff’s complaint includes a section titled “Jurisdiction and Reason of the Case

and or Charges,” in which plaintiff asserts that he has filed his suit in this court because “this

court must not allow the lower government courts to committ [sic] fraudant [sic] acts but instead

allow this suit to be heard by the people ‘a jury’ and let them see what crimes are being

committed by the defendants after viewing the evidence of many, many years the plaintiff believe

the ‘people’ will see.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff’s jurisdictional statement contains no mention of a

federal question or a federal jurisdictional statute. (Id. at 3-5.) On the civil cover sheet attached

to the complaint, the basis of jurisdiction indicated by plaintiff is “U.S. Government Defendant.”

(Id. at 221.) 

Plaintiff seeks review of ongoing state administrative and judicial proceedings and

an award of damages against local government entities and individuals arising from almost two

decades of city code enforcement actions and the county’s planned sale of plaintiff’s property to

satisfy unpaid fees charged against plaintiff’s property. Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, the

United States Government is not a defendant in the case, and there is no diversity of citizenship

between plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiff’s complaint does not identify any federal question or

cite any federal statute that gives the federal district courts jurisdiction over the subject matter

described in the complaint. The federal district court does not have jurisdiction to review alleged

errors in state proceedings. See Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994) (holding

that a party who loses in state court “is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate

review of the state judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party’s claim

that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights”). See also Rooker v. Fidelity

Case 2:07-cv-01875-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 12/06/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 414-16 (1923). In addition, plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating

that he has a private right of action to prosecute any of the defendants for their alleged crimes. 

See Cooley v. Keisling, 45 F. Supp. 2d 818, 820 (D. Or. 1999) (noting that enforcement of

federal criminal statutes rests in the discretion of the Attorney General of the United States).

In the absence of a federal claim or diversity, this court lacks jurisdiction over

plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint should therefore be dismissed. Leave to amend

should not be granted because the extensive documentation attached to plaintiff’s complaint does

not support any basis for federal jurisdiction. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 542-43

(1974) (dismissal for want of jurisdiction appropriate where the claim does not involve a federal

controversy within the jurisdiction of the district court).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s September 11, 2007 application to proceed in forma pauperis be

denied; and

2. This action be dismissed with prejudice.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

ten (10) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file any

written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

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

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 6, 2007.

DAD:kw

Ddad1\orders.pro se\lyon1875.f&r.ifpjur

Case 2:07-cv-01875-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 12/06/07 Page 5 of 5