Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02522/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02522-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anna Beryozkina
Counter-claimant
Eder Nascimento Da Encarnacao
Counter-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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDER NASCIMENTO DA 

ENCARNACAO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNA BERYOZKINA,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02522-MEJ 

ORDER SCREENING SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT; REQUIRING 

DEFENDANT TO RESPOND; SETTING 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; 

INDICATING REFERRAL TO 

FEDERAL PRO BONO PROJECT

INTRODUCTION

On June 3, 2016, this Court granted Plaintiff Eder Nascimento Da Encarnacao’s 

(“Plaintiff”) in forma pauperis application, but dismissed his Complaint with leave to amend. 

First Screening Order, Dkt. No. 6. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 14, 2016. FAC, 

Dkt. No. 8. On June 27, 2016, the Court found the Amended Complaint for enforcement of an 

I-864 Affidavit of Support stated a cognizable claim and directed the Clerk of Court to issue the 

summons and the U.S. Marshal to serve the Amended Complaint. Nascimento Da Encarnacao v. 

Beryozkina, Case No. 16-cv-2522 (N.D. Cal.) (“Da Encarnacao I”), FAC, Dkt. No. 8; Second 

Screening Order, Dkt. No. 9. A summons was issued, the U.S. Marshal served the Complaint, and 

Defendant Anna Beryozkina (“Defendant”) acknowledged receipt of the summons and Complaint 

on August 12, 2016. See Summons, Dkt. No. 11; Summons Returned Executed, Dkt. No. 17. 

After filing his initial complaint in Da Encarnacao I, Plaintiff commenced three additional 

actions. See Order of Consolidation, Dkt. No. 28. All four actions appeared to stem from the 

same alleged course of conduct: Plaintiff alleged Defendant took on the legal obligation to support 

him financially when she sponsored his immigration to the United States, and she failed to do so. 

Plaintiff also alleged additional wrongful acts by Defendant, including theft of his immigration 

Case 3:16-cv-02522-MEJ Document 36 Filed 10/25/16 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

and social security documents, assault and battery, and slander. Id. The Honorable Donna M.

Ryu remanded one of the actions to state court and closed that case. Nascimento Da Encarnacao 

v. Beryozkina, Case No. 16-cv-2899 (“Da Encarnacao II”), Order of Remand (N.D. Cal. filed 

Aug. 15, 2016). The undersigned dismissed another action for failing to demonstrate a basis for 

federal subject matter jurisdiction. Nascimento Da Encarnacao v. Beryozkina, Case No. 16-cv4707 (“Da Encarnacao III”), Order Dismissing Compl. (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 3, 2016).1

 The 

undersigned then related and consolidated the remaining two actions (Da Encarnacao I and 

Nascimento Da Encarnacao v. Beryozkina, Case No. 16-cv-4918 (N.D. Cal.) (“Da Encarnacao 

IV”)). See Order of Consolidation. The undersigned judge ordered Plaintiff to file a Second 

Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in consolidated Case No. 16-cv-2522 (Da Encarnacao I), where he 

would join all his claims against Defendant into one complaint. Id. As Plaintiff would continue to 

proceed in forma pauperis (i.e., he has not paid the filing fees to commence suit in this Court), the 

Court informed Plaintiff it would then screen the SAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The 

Court also ordered Defendant not to respond to the SAC until ordered to do so.

Plaintiff filed a SAC on October 13, 2016. SAC, Dkt. No. 33.2 The Court now screens the 

SAC.

LEGAL STANDARD

As noted above, while the Court previously granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status, it 

must still review Plaintiff’s Complaint to determine whether the action may be allowed to proceed

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court must dismiss the Complaint if it is frivolous, fails to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To make this determination, courts assess 

whether there is a factual and legal basis for the asserted wrong, “however inartfully pleaded.” 

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984) (quotation omitted). Pro se pleadings 

 

1

The undersigned did not give Plaintiff leave to amend that complaint, but specified that “[t]o the 

extent Plaintiff wishes to amend to assert allegations he raised in this action against Defendant, he 

may do so by joining these claims to those he asserts in the Related Case No. 16-cv-2522.” Id. at 

4. 

2 All future docket citations are to documents found in Da Encarnacao I.

Case 3:16-cv-02522-MEJ Document 36 Filed 10/25/16 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

are liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Moreover, 

when dismissing a case, the Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district court should grant 

leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the 

pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 

1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, 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. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).

SCREENING

Upon review of the allegations of the SAC, the Court finds that, liberally construed, Eder 

Nascimento Da Encarnacao has stated (1) a breach of contract claim for enforcement of an I-864 

Affidavit of Support; and (2) a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”).

3

 

Plaintiff alleges Defendant signed an I-864 Affidavit of Support to sponsor his 

immigration into the United States. See SAC at 1-2, 5 & Ex. 1 (I-864 Form signed July 13, 2011). 

He further alleges Defendant has denied him and his son support since July 7, 2015. SAC at 1-2, 

5. “Federal courts have consistently found that a Form I-864 constitutes a legally binding and 

enforceable contract between sponsor and a sponsored immigrant. The terms of the Form I-864 

provide for the appropriate measure of damages that would put plaintiff in as good a position as 

[he] would have been had the contract been performed. A sponsor may also be held liable for 

legal fees and other costs of collection.” Shumye v. Felleke, 555 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1024 (N.D. 

Cal. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Plaintiff accordingly has stated the 

existence of an enforceable contract between himself and Defendant, has alleged that Defendant 

breached that contract by failing to support him and his son, and has alleged that he has suffered 

damages as a result of Defendant’s breach. He has stated a claim for enforcement of an I-864 

Affidavit of Support.

 

3

The Court notes Plaintiff attaches a document from an action pending in Superior Court

involving both him and Defendant. See SAC, Ex. 6. The Court lacks sufficient information at this 

time to determine whether the Superior Court action relates to Plaintiff’s claims in this matter, or 

whether the ultimate resolution of that state action may impact the Court’s ability to resolve this 

matter.

Case 3:16-cv-02522-MEJ Document 36 Filed 10/25/16 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

To state a claim for IIED under California law, Plaintiff must allege (1) extreme and 

outrageous conduct by Defendant with the intention of causing, or with reckless disregard for the 

probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) he suffered severe or extreme emotional distress; 

and (3) Defendant’s outrageous conduct was the actual and proximate cause of his distress. See 

Sabow v. United States, 93 F.3d 1445, 1454 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Christensen v. Super. Ct., 54 

Cal.3d 868 (1991)). Plaintiff alleges Defendant withheld financial support from him and his son

knowing he could not provide basic necessities without her support, stole important documents 

from him, made false reports to the police accusing him of abusing his child, made false 

statements about him to third parties, and threatened him with bodily harm, all for the purpose of 

avoiding compliance with her support obligations. If true, such allegations constitute extreme and 

outrageous conduct by Defendant, with the intention of, or reckless disregard for the probability 

of, causing emotional distress. He also alleges the second element of an IIED claim by stating he 

has been humiliated, he fears for his life, and he has been diagnosed with “depression and panic 

syndrome” for which he receives treatment, including medication. SAC at 1, 4. Finally, he 

alleges the distress was caused by Defendant’s conduct and her “traumatizing [him] to give up the 

request for mandatory support.” Id. Plaintiff thus has stated a claim for IIED.

Plaintiff references a number of other issues and grievances against Defendant. Some of 

them appear to support his IIED and contract claims, but others are not tied to any specific claims 

and in some instances seek relief that the Court does not have the power to grant. See, e.g., SAC 

¶¶ 7-9, 11, 13-15. For clarification, the Court is only permitting Plaintiff to proceed with his 

contract and IIED claims at this point; it is unclear whether he intends to assert any other claims,

and the bases for any additional claims are unclear. 

Plaintiff’s claim for enforcement of an I-864 Affidavit of Support gives rise to federal 

jurisdiction, and the Court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim for IIED. 

Defendant is not an immune defendant.

Having screened the SAC, the Court is satisfied Plaintiff may proceed with this case. 

Defendant accordingly shall respond to the SAC by November 22, 2016. 

Case 3:16-cv-02522-MEJ Document 36 Filed 10/25/16 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

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and Civil Local Rule 16-10, a Case 

Management Conference will be held in this case before the Honorable Maria-Elena James on 

December 1, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San 

Francisco, CA 94102. This conference shall be attended by lead trial counsel for parties who are 

represented. Parties who are proceeding without counsel must appear personally.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than seven calendar days before the Case 

Management Conference, the parties shall file a Joint Case Management Statement containing the 

information described in the Standing Order for All Judges in the Northern District of California, 

available at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/mejorders. The Joint Case Management Statement form may 

be obtained at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. If the statement is e-filed, no chambers copy is 

required.

REFERRAL

Finally, the Court will enter a separate order referring Plaintiff to the Federal Pro Bono 

Project for the appointment of counsel for all purposes for the duration of the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02522-MEJ Document 36 Filed 10/25/16 Page 5 of 5