Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04265/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04265-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Honolulu
Defendant
Mbay Louvouezo
Plaintiff

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MBAY LOUVOUEZO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF HONOLULU,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-04265-DMR 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Re: Dkt. No. 12

Plaintiff filed a Complaint and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP 

Application”) on September 18, 2015. [Docket Nos. 1 and 2.] On October 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed 

consent to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c). [Docket No. 5.] The 

court granted the IFP Application and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.1[Docket No. 

7.] On October 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction and an 

amended complaint. [Docket Nos. 11 and 12.] 

The amended complaint fails to address the deficiencies identified in the court’s prior order 

and the court dismisses the case without leave to amend. 

 

 

1

 A magistrate judge generally must obtain the consent of the parties to enter dispositive rulings 

and judgments in a civil case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). However, in cases such as this one, 

where the plaintiff has consented but not served the defendants, “all parties have consented 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),” and a magistrate judge therefore “‘may conduct any or all 

proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case.’” Gaddy 

v. McDonald, No. CV 11-08271 SS, 2011 WL 5515505, at *1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) 

(quoting § 636(c)(1)) (citing United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995)); 

Third World Media, LLC v. Doe, No. C 10-04470 LB, 2011 WL 4344160, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 

15, 2011)); see also Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate 

judge had jurisdiction to dismiss action as frivolous without consent of defendants because 

defendants had not yet been served and therefore were not parties).

Case 4:15-cv-04265-DMR Document 13 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his amended complaint against the City of Honolulu on October 30, 2015. 

[Docket No. 12.] The amended complaint contains no specific legal claims, but alleges that: (1) 

Plaintiff has been chased by people in a red helicopter who are trying to kill him; (2) Plaintiff has 

been cursed at by bus drivers; (3) cars drive through puddles to splash Plaintiff; (4) a blond man in 

black clothing has been following Plaintiff; (5) Plaintiff’s apartment manager did not return his 

security deposit; and (6) an airline worker charged Plaintiff an extra baggage fee. Id. Plaintiff 

also states that that while in Honolulu he heard a woman screaming above his apartment. Plaintiff 

called the police, but after they arrived and Plaintiff did not know the location of the screaming, 

the police left without investigating. Plaintiff further alleges that helicopters and airplanes 

continue to follow him in Oakland and Berkeley, including a red helicopter. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Consent to Jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge 

On October 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed consent to proceed before a magistrate judge under 28 

U.S.C. §636(c), but filed a declination several weeks later. [Docket Nos. 5 and 11.] 

A party to a federal civil case has, subject to some exceptions, a constitutional right to 

proceed before an Article III judge. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir. 1993); Pacemaker 

Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537, 541 (9th Cir. 1984) (en 

banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824, 105 S.Ct. 100, 83 L.Ed.2d 45 (1984). The entitlement to an 

Article III adjudicator is “a personal right” and thus ordinarily “subject to waiver,” and the court 

has never held that a litigant who has the right to an Article III court may not waive that right 

through his consent. Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932, 1944, 1947 (2015)

citing Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 848 (1986). This right can be 

waived, allowing parties to consent to trial before a magistrate judge. Dixon at 479-480; 

Pacemaker at 542; 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). That consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction can be 

express or implied, based on “actions rather than words.” Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580, 589

(2003). Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under section 636(c), the reference can 

Case 4:15-cv-04265-DMR Document 13 Filed 11/20/15 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

be withdrawn only by the court, and only “for good cause shown on its own motion, or under 

extraordinary circumstances shown by any party.” Dixon at 480 (quoting Fellman v. Fireman's 

Fund Ins. Co., 735 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir.1984)); 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b). There is 

no absolute right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to trial and other proceedings before a 

magistrate judge. Dixon at 480. Here, Plaintiff states that he “did not understand ... the very first 

time I was filling out my complaint, regarding my case by consenting a judge. Magistrate or not. 

I missed understanding that part.” [Docket No. 11 at 2.] 

Plaintiff has filed his express consent to proceed before a magistrate judge. [Docket No. 

5.] After the court issued an order dismissing his case with leave to amend, Plaintiff filed a 

declination. Plaintiff has not shown good cause or presented evidence of extraordinary 

circumstances for the court to allow Plaintiff to withdraw his consent to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff's October 30, 2015 declination of magistrate judge jurisdiction 

will be disregarded. Defendant has not been served, and therefore is not a party to the suit 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Third World Media, LLC v. Does 1-1568, No. 10-04470-LB, 

2011 WL 4344160, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2011). The undersigned may exercise jurisdiction to 

conduct all proceedings in this matter, including the entry of judgment. 

B. Review of Complaint 

In reviewing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts may dismiss a case sua 

sponte if the party applying for in forma pauperis status files a frivolous action or fails to state a 

claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To make the determination 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), courts assess whether there is an arguable factual and legal basis 

for the asserted wrong, “however inartfully pleaded.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-

28 (9th Cir. 1984). Courts have the authority to dismiss complaints founded on “wholly fanciful” 

factual allegations for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 1228. A court can also dismiss a 

complaint where it is based solely on conclusory statements, naked assertions without any factual 

basis, or allegations that are not plausible on their face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 

(2009); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (per curiam).

Case 4:15-cv-04265-DMR Document 13 Filed 11/20/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than 

those drafted by lawyers, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or 

portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails to set forth “enough facts 

to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

554 (2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] district court should not dismiss a pro se 

complaint without leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the 

complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 

2012) (quotations omitted). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint, titled “statement of experiences in Honolulu,” adds

additional facts that were not in his initial complaint. However, the amended complaint fails to set 

forth facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. The Plaintiff names the City of 

Honolulu as the Defendant, but does not explain how the City of Honolulu violated his rights or 

which rights were violated. Plaintiff describes an incident that occurred while he was in Hawaii 

where he heard a woman named Joni screaming above his apartment and he believed that she was 

being raped. After Plaintiff called the police they inquired where the screaming was coming from. 

Plaintiff did not know and that the police departed without investigating. Plaintiff alleges that 

after the incident when he heard Joni screaming “his life changed.” Amended Complaint [Docket 

No. 12] at 2. After the incident with Joni, Plaintiff “felt that everywhere he went, people would 

insult him and call him swear words....He was also insulted and called swear words by the bus 

drivers. He noticed that unmarked police cars would follow him.” Id. Plaintiff also alleges that 

he “notice[d] a blond guy who always wore black that would follow him” everywhere and that 

“cars would drive by during the rains and drive through puddles to splash him.” Id. Plaintiff’s 

complaint also includes allegations that his apartment manager did not return his security deposit, 

that he got a ticket for jaywalking, and that an airline worker charged him an extra baggage fee at 

the airport. Id. However, Plaintiff fails to provide facts that would support a cause of action and 

the amended complaint fails to tie the allegations to the named Defendant, the City of Honolulu. 

Plaintiff also alleges that he is being chased by a red helicopter and that the people inside 

the helicopter are trying to kill him. He alleges that since he has left Honolulu, planes and 

Case 4:15-cv-04265-DMR Document 13 Filed 11/20/15 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

helicopters continue to follow him in Oakland and Berkeley, including a red helicopter. Id. In 

sum, Plaintiff states no facts in support of a comprehensible cause of action under any statute, nor 

does he provide any facts suggesting that this court has jurisdiction over his complaint. 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint also does not state a basis for asserting for federal question 

or diversity jurisdiction, and does not address the jurisdictional defects identified in the first order 

of dismissal. 

The court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. The amended 

complaint fails to address the deficiencies noted in the court’s prior order and it does not appear 

that the deficiencies can be cured by further amendment. [Docket No. 7.] The court therefore 

dismisses the complaint without leave to amend. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the court dismisses Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint without leave to 

amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2015

______________________________________

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-04265-DMR Document 13 Filed 11/20/15 Page 5 of 5