Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00584/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00584-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcial Barrios Correa
Plaintiff
Steven D. Smith
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCIAL BARRIOS CORREA, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

STEVEN D. SMITH, )

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:05 CV F 05 0584 REC DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant complaint on April 6,

2005. Plaintiff names the Steven D. Smith as Defendant and requests damages in the amount of

$35,000.00.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the

complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof

if the court determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state

a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be

cured by amendment.

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

Case 1:05-cv-00584-REC-DLB Document 4 Filed 05/03/05 Page 1 of 3
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

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, 

cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has

jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a

demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of

several different types may be demanded.

Plaintiff alleges that he hired attorney Steven D. Smith to represent him and assist him in

release from jail. Plaintiff alleges he paid Mr. Smith $35,000.00. He asserts that Mr. Smith

failed to comply with his duties and lost interest in his case. Plaintiff seeks $35,000.00 plus

interest and the costs of his incarceration for 19 months.

Plaintiff has failed to state the grounds for jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Rule 8. 

The Federal Court are Courts of limited jurisdiction. Unlike the state courts, there is no inherent

or general subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Court can only adjudicate those cases that the

Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate which are essentially those involving

diversity of citizenship, or a federal question, or to which the United States is a party. Kokkonen

v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. Of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994). Plaintiff has not alleged nor does

the Court find any basis for Federal Court jurisdiction in the present case. It does not appear that

diversity of citizenship exists and plaintiff has not alleged the deprivation of a federal

constitutional or statutory right. Plaintiff is informed that violation of state law, such as

negligence and malpractice, is not sufficient to state a claim for relief under federal law. To state

a claim under § 1983, there must be a deprivation of federal constitutional or statutory rights. 

See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976). Although the court may exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over state law claims, plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under

federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. It appears as though plaintiff may have intended to file this

in state court as he has used California State Judicial Council Forms and his allegations are

essentially state law claims of negligence. 

Case 1:05-cv-00584-REC-DLB Document 4 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the action. As this deficiency

cannot be cured by amendment, the action should be dismissed without leave to amend. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Court recommends that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO

AMEND. These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the Honorable Robert E.

Coyle, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after

being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with

the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00584-REC-DLB Document 4 Filed 05/03/05 Page 3 of 3