Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02098/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02098-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELICITAS DOMINGUEZ, No. 2:14-cv-2098-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

JACK IN THE BOX,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this action purportedly

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. Pending

before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1). 1

Plaintiff has also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Her original 1

application was incomplete as she failed to provide a certified copy of her prison trust account

statement. She was ordered to submit a completed application. The second application she filed

failed to provide any trust account statement. She indicates that she submitted a copy of her

prison trust account statement to the court, but she failed to include her case number on the

document. The court has no record of receiving a certified statement. The only trust account

statement on the court’s docket is the one included with her original in forma puaperis request,

which was not a certified copy as required. However, the court finds this action cannot otherwise

proceed, so is issuing this order despite plaintiff’s incomplete application. 

1

Case 2:14-cv-02098-CMK Document 9 Filed 04/29/16 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

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court is also required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these screening

provisions, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B) and

1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h), this court must

dismiss an action “[w]henever it appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject

matter . . . .” 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “ short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2). This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v.

Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are

satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds

upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which

support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it

is impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are

vague and conclusory. 

I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

She alleges she was discriminated against by Jack in the Box. She states that after

ordering her food, employees brought her order out to the parking lot where she was waiting with

the Police Officer who paid for her breakfast. She was told she was not allowed to eat in the

lobby. She claims that was slander and discrimination, and she was made to feel very sad and

less of a person, that her self esteem was hurt. 

2

Case 2:14-cv-02098-CMK Document 9 Filed 04/29/16 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

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed this action using a form complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42

U.S.C. § 1983. In general, § 1983 imposes liability upon any person who, acting under color of

state law, deprives another of a federally protected right. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982). Section 1983

provides that “[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or

usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected,

any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation

of any rights, privileges, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the

party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .” 42

U.S.C. § 1983. “Traditionally, the requirements for relief under [§] 1983 have been articulated

as (1) a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute, (2)

proximately caused (3) by conduct of a ‘person’ (4) acting under color of state law.” Crumpton

v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). Generally, plaintiffs are required to “plead that

(1) the defendants acting under color of state law (2) deprived plaintiffs of rights secured by the

Constitution or federal statutes.” Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986);

see also WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 197 F.3d 367, 372 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). 

To state a claim for violation of her constitutional rights, plaintiff must allege an

actual connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged

deprivations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423

U.S. 362 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right . . . if

he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act

which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.”

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations

concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See

Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth

specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional

3

Case 2:14-cv-02098-CMK Document 9 Filed 04/29/16 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

deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiff’s complaint does not name any individual defendant who could be

considered a state actor. Rather, the only defendant named is Jack in the Box. Neither Jack in

the Box, nor any of the employees could be considered state actors acting under state law. See

Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding private parties are not generally

acting under color of state law). Therefore, plaintiff cannot state a claim under § 1983.

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this

limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting

jurisdiction.” Id. (citations omitted). Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases involving

federal questions and cases between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that

“district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution,

laws, or treaties of the United States.” Section 1332 provides, in relevant part, that “district

courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds

the sum or value of $75,000, . . . and is between citizens of different States . . . .” 

Here, the only claims plaintiff alleges are discrimination and slander. She does

not reference any law in her complaint, but on the civil cover sheet attached thereto, she indicates

she is proceeding under California Civil Code § 51 and the Fourth Amendment. Slander is a

state law claim, which this court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over only if plaintiff

otherwise states a claim under federal law. As to her discrimination claim, the only law

identified is Civil Code § 51, the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Again, this is a state law and does not

provide this court with federal question jurisdiction. If she was attempting to bring any other

discrimination claim, her allegations are too vague for the court to find any claim there as she

failed to identify what right was violated and how she qualified for the protection of that law. 

Finally, the Fourth Amendment violation identified on the civil cover sheet is not alleged in the

body of the complaint. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable search and

4

Case 2:14-cv-02098-CMK Document 9 Filed 04/29/16 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

seizure. There is nothing in the facts alleged that would indicate plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment

rights were, or could have been, violated by Jack in the Box. The undersigned finds no federal

question to provide this court jurisdiction. Similarly, there is no allegation that this case would

qualify for diversity jurisdiction, as plaintiff indicates on the civil cover sheet that both parties are

citizens of the state of California. 

III. CONCLUSION 

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of this order, why this action

should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. If plaintiff believes she would be able to cure

the defects in the complaint identified herein, she may inform the court in any objections she

files. Plaintiff is warned that failure to respond to this order may result in dismissal of the action

for the reasons outlined above, as well as for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules and

orders. See Local Rule 110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 28, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 2:14-cv-02098-CMK Document 9 Filed 04/29/16 Page 5 of 5