Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01042/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01042-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Medical Malpractice

---

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 

DIMITRIY YEGOROV, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PAUL KRAMER, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-1042 TLN GGH PS 

ORDER 

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

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 

302(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

 The determination that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the 

required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at 

any time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if 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. 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Case 2:15-cv-01042-TLN-GGH Document 3 Filed 07/14/15 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 

27 

28 

2

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim 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. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 

 A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). 

“The pleading must contain something more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a 

suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id., quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal 

Practice and Procedure 1216, pp. 235-235 (3d ed. 2004). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 

S.Ct. 1955). “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.” 

Id. 

 Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 

S. Ct. 594, 595-96 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff 

proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. 

See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1230. 

 The factual allegations of the complaint are difficult to decipher, but plaintiff alleges 

defendant Dr. Kramer committed medical malpractice against both plaintiff and his 72 year old 

blind mother. The complaint asserts in part that Dr. Kramer refused to provide medical care to 

plaintiff and possibly (though unclear) his mother (not a party), (ECF No. 1 at 6, 5), refused to 

prescribe plaintiff any medications for strong pain, (id. at 3), and stole a leather file belonging to 

plaintiff’s mother (id. at 2, 8). Plaintiff also alleges that defendant prohibited plaintiff and his 

mother from entering their church and attending the service. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff further alleges 

Case 2:15-cv-01042-TLN-GGH Document 3 Filed 07/14/15 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 

27 

28 

3

verbal abuse by defendant against plaintiff’s mother, and threats of physical abuse against 

plaintiff, (id. at 7-8). Finally, plaintiff alleges that defendant sent bills to plaintiff after refusing to 

provide him with medical care. (Id. at 8.) As his jurisdictional bases, plaintiff alleges violations 

of “the law of the United States of America and state California protecting blind seniors and care 

providers for the blind, and “crimes of conspiracy against petitioner and his mother under federal 

law and law state of California.” [Sic]. (Id. at 6, 7.) 

The court is unable to determine a jurisdictional basis for this action. A federal court is a 

court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by the Constitution 

and by Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 

1675 (1994). U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1 provides that the judicial power of the United States is 

vested in the Supreme Court, “and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time 

ordain and establish.” Congress therefore confers jurisdiction upon federal district courts, as 

limited by U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 697-99, 112 S. 

Ct. 2206, 2212 (1992). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either 

party or by the court. See Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 

594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). 

 The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal 

question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Statutes which regulate specific subject 

matter may also confer federal jurisdiction. See generally, W.W. Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J. 

Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 2:5. Unless a complaint presents a plausible 

assertion of a substantial federal right, a federal court does not have jurisdiction. See Bell v. 

Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S. Ct. 773, 776 (1945). A federal claim which is so insubstantial as 

to be patently without merit cannot serve as the basis for federal jurisdiction. See Hagans v. 

Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537-38, 94 S. Ct. 1372, 1379-80 (1974). 

 For diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, each plaintiff’s state citizenship 

must be diverse from each defendant, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. For 

federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the complaint must either (1) arise 

under a federal law or the United States Constitution, (2) allege a “case or controversy” within the 

Case 2:15-cv-01042-TLN-GGH Document 3 Filed 07/14/15 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 

27 

28 

4

meaning of Article III, section 2, or (3) be authorized by a jurisdiction statute. Baker v. Carr, 369 

U.S. 186, 198, 82 S. Ct. 691, 699-700 (1962). 

 Aside from the fact that the allegations are vague, the court can discern no conceivable 

federal claim. The complaint fails to allege a violation of any federal statute or any specific 

clause of the United States Constitution.1 A less stringent examination is afforded pro se 

pleadings, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594 (1972), but simple reference to 

federal law does not create subject matter jurisdiction. Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co., 53 F.3d 690, 

694 (5th Cir.1995). Subject matter jurisdiction is created only by pleading a cause of action that is 

within the court's original jurisdiction. Id. 

Nor has plaintiff alleged diversity jurisdiction, which may not be applicable here, as 

plaintiff and defendant both appear to be citizens of California. Since the only claims in the 

amended complaint are for state law violations, the complaint may not go forward in this court 

without diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, plaintiff will be permitted to amend the complaint to 

plead a proper jurisdictional basis that is supported by the facts. Plaintiff is informed that the 

amended complaint must allege only violations against himself. If he continues to allege 

violations against his mother, those claims will be dismissed for lack of standing. 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Forsyth v. Humana, 

Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir.1997), overruled in part on other grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, 

the original pleading no longer serves an operative function in the case. Therefore, in an 

amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 

 

1

 Nor has plaintiff alleged a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12182(a), for which plaintiff would have no standing to bring any potential claims of his 

mother. See Halet v. Wend Inv. Co., 672 F.2d 1305, 1308 (9th Cir. 1982) (party must assert [his] 

own rights not those of third parties), citing Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study 

Group, 438 U.S. 59, 80, 98 S.Ct. 2620, 2634 (1978); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499, 95 S.Ct. 

2197, 2205 (1974). Plaintiff, who is proceeding in this action pro se, may proceed only on his 

own behalf. 

Case 2:15-cv-01042-TLN-GGH Document 3 Filed 07/14/15 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 

27 

28 

5

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

2. The complaint is dismissed for the reasons discussed above, with leave to file an 

amended complaint within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of service of this Order. The 

amended complaint must comply with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned 

this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint;” plaintiff must file an original and two 

copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

 3. Failure to file an amended complaint that conforms with the requirements outlined 

above will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

Dated: July 13, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

GGH:076/Yegorov1042.fr 

Case 2:15-cv-01042-TLN-GGH Document 3 Filed 07/14/15 Page 5 of 5