Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02137/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02137-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983bv Bivens Non-Prisoner

---

1

18cv2137-JAH (WVG)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOES 1-6; 

MARK HELD, METROPOLITAN 

TRANSIT SYSTEM – S.D.T.C.; 

GREGORY WILLIAMS, TRANSDEV 

SERVICE, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv2137-JAH (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 29)

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is Defendant Transdev Services, Inc.’s (“Defendant”)

motion to dismiss Plaintiff Lisa Anderson’s (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (the 

“FAC”). Doc. No. 29. The motion is unopposed. After careful consideration of the 

pleadings, and for the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is 

GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND

On September 14, 2018, pro se Plaintiff Lisa Anderson filed an action against 

Defendants Does 1-6, Mark Held, Metropolitan Transit System-S.D.T.C., Gregory 

Case 3:18-cv-02137-JAH-WVG Document 34 Filed 09/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

18cv2137-JAH (WVG)

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

Williams, and Transdev Service, Inc., alleging “deprivation of civil rights secured by the 

First, First, and Fourteenth Amendment” and intentional infliction of emotional distress

(the “Complaint”). Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff claims that unidentified bus drivers mocked her, 

made noises at her while she was on the street or on the bus, and used excessive force on 

the Plaintiff. Id. at pg. 3. On January 2, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the 

Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Doc. No. 11. On March 4, 2019, this Court granted Defendant’s motion, with 

leave to amend within thirty (30) days. Doc. No. 17. 

Plaintiff filed the FAC on April 4, 2019. Doc. No. 18. Defendant filed a motion to 

dismiss the FAC pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure on May 31, 2019. Doc. No. 29. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s

motion.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

Under 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant may seek to 

dismiss a complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The federal court is 

one of limited jurisdiction. See Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. New York, 790 F.2d 769, 

774 (9th Cir. 1986). As such, it cannot reach the merits of any dispute until it confirms its 

own subject matter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environ., 523 U.S. 

83, 95 (1998). When considering a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, the district court is 

free to hear evidence regarding jurisdiction and to rule on that issue prior to trial, resolving 

factual disputes where necessary. See Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 

(9th Cir. 1983). In such circumstances, “[n]o presumptive truthfulness attaches to 

plaintiff’s allegations, and the existence of disputed facts will not preclude the trial court 

from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims.” Id. (quoting Thornhill 

Publishing Co. v. General Telephone & Electronic Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 

1979)). Plaintiff, as the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction, has the burden of establishing 

Case 3:18-cv-02137-JAH-WVG Document 34 Filed 09/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

18cv2137-JAH (WVG)

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

that jurisdiction exists. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 

(1994).

To effectively state a claim for a civil rights violation under Section 1983, the 

claimant must allege: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United 

States was violated, and (2) the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under 

the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). A person “acting under the 

color of state law” in violation of Section 1983 requires a defendant to exercise power 

“possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed 

with the authority of state law.” Id. at 49. 

“Ordinarily, a pro se complaint will be liberally construed and will be dismissed only 

if it appears ‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim 

which would entitle him to relief.’” Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(internal quotes omitted). However, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official 

participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss." 

Ivey v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint. 

Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Dismissal is warranted under Rule 

12(b)(6) where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or fails to allege sufficient 

facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Li v. Kerry, 710 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2013). 

“To survive a motion to dismiss, 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, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 

(2007)). A claim is facially plausible when the factual allegations permit “the court to draw 

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

556 U.S. at 678. In other words, “the non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable 

inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff

to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Iqbal, 556 

Case 3:18-cv-02137-JAH-WVG Document 34 Filed 09/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

18cv2137-JAH (WVG)

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

U.S. at 678). “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . 

be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 

experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must assume the truth 

of all factual allegations and construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to 

the nonmoving party. Cahil v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). 

However, legal conclusions need not be taken as true merely because they are “cast in the 

form of factual allegations.” Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2003). “Nor 

does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual 

enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). The court may 

consider facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint, documents 

relied upon but not attached to the complaint when authenticity is not contested, and 

matters of which the court takes judicial notice. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 

688-89 (9th Cir. 2001). If a court determines that a complaint fails to state a claim, the court 

should grant leave to amend unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be 

cured by the allegation of other facts. Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 

1995). 

II. Analysis

Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) provides that “[i]f an opposing party fails to file the 

papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1e.2, that failure may constitute a 

consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” Moreover, the 

Ninth Circuit has recognized that failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper 

ground for dismissal. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming a 

district court’s dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failure to timely oppose a 

motion to dismiss where she had notice of the motion and ample time to respond).

The hearing date for Defendant’s motion to dismiss was scheduled for July 8, 2019 

at 2:30 p.m. Local Rule 7.1e.2 requires that an opposition must be filed and served no later 

than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed hearing. Thus, Plaintiff’s opposition 

Case 3:18-cv-02137-JAH-WVG Document 34 Filed 09/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

18cv2137-JAH (WVG)

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

was due by June 25, 2019. The Court has not received any opposition from Plaintiff, nor 

has she requested additional time to file such an opposition. Accordingly, pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c), the Court deems Plaintiff’s failure to oppose Defendant’s Motion 

as consent to granting it.

The above conclusion makes consideration of Defendant’s motions unnecessary.

However, in the interest of justice, the Court will address Defendant’s 12(b)(1) and 

12(b)(2) motions to dismiss.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to invoke federal jurisdiction. Doc. No. 29 at 

pg. 14. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s alleged claims under the Constitution or federal 

statutes appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction. 

Id. at pgs. 14-15. In addition, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s IIED claim is not 

cognizable under Section 1983. Id. at pg. 15. Defendant also argues that even if IIED was 

a recognizable claim under Section 1983, Plaintiff fails to fulfill the elements of an IIED 

claim. Id. 

The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff fails to invoke federal jurisdiction.

In reviewing Plaintiff’s pleadings, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to meet the burden of 

establishing federal jurisdiction. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Plaintiff claims that the 

transit drivers acted in “a malicious, willful, rude, violent, intimidated, threatening, 

maligned, and insolent manner.” Doc. No. 18 at pg. 3. Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff

fails to properly plead that these actions violated her Constitutional and civil rights. 

Therefore, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff fails to 

plead a federal question, and there is no complete diversity of citizenship between parties. 

Defendant also moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be 

granted. Id. at pgs. 9-13. Defendant argues Plaintiff’s “FAC fail to state any facts that 

could conceivably support . . . any wrongdoing by [Defendant] . . . or any purported 

[Defendant’s] employees.” Id. at pg. 13. 

The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for which relief 

can be granted. See Doc. No. 29, pgs. 9-13. Plaintiff claims that Defendants would “hit 

Case 3:18-cv-02137-JAH-WVG Document 34 Filed 09/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

18cv2137-JAH (WVG)

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

out a loud boom directly at plaintiff,” and that transit drivers yelled in a menacing manner 

for her to “shut up or get off the bus.” Doc. No. 18 at pg. 3. The Court finds that Plaintiff 

allegations are insufficient to support a cognizable legal theory. See Li, 710 F.3d at 999. 

Even viewing Plaintiff’s allegations in light most favorable to her and under the most 

liberal pleading standards provided to pro se plaintiffs, the FAC fails to suggest a claim 

entitling her to relief. See Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff’s FAC 

(Doc. No. 18) with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 23, 2019

__________________________________

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02137-JAH-WVG Document 34 Filed 09/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6