Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04690/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04690-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patty Boyle
Defendant
Tracey N. Thompson
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

TRACEY N. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATTY BOYLE,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-04690-DMR 

REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT; 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE 

DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff Tracey N. Thompson filed a complaint and an application for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”) on August 16, 2016. On September 1, 2016, the court granted Plaintiff’s 

IFP application but reserved its determination of the complaint’s compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B). [Docket No. 4.] Plaintiff has not consented to the jurisdiction of a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Therefore, the court issues this Report and 

Recommendation and reassigns the case to a District Judge for final disposition, with the 

recommendation that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with leave to amend.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Although the court has granted Plaintiff’s IFP application, it must review Plaintiff’s 

complaint to determine whether the action may proceed. A court is under a continuing duty to 

dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing fee whenever it determines that the action 

“(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) 

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). 

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 

Case 4:16-cv-04690-DMR Document 7 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 4
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

v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). While pro se pleadings are liberally 

construed, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam), courts have the authority to 

dismiss complaints founded on “wholly fanciful” factual allegations for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Franklin, 745 F.2d 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).

B. Discussion

Plaintiff’s complaint is largely unintelligible. Plaintiff appears to allege that FBI Agent 

John Dahmer has been “investigating” Plaintiff’s apartment for nine years, and that Dahmer may 

have witnessed Plaintiff in “[e]mbarrassing situations.” Compl. Plaintiff does not name Dahmer 

as a party. Instead, she sues Defendant Patty Boyle, who owns the apartment building in which 

Plaintiff lives. Plaintiff does not make any other allegations about Defendant, nor does she state 

any specific claims against her. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed as 

inadequately pleaded, since it fails to provide specific factual allegations connecting Defendant 

with any alleged wrongdoing.

Plaintiff’s complaint also fails to state a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and a “federal court is presumed to lack 

jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. 

Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). In most cases, 

original federal subject jurisdiction may be premised on two grounds: (1) federal question 

jurisdiction, or (1) diversity jurisdiction. Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1331 requires a civil action to “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 

States.” Here, Plaintiff has not asserted any claims based on federal law. As to diversity 

jurisdiction, Plaintiff must claim damages in excess of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In addition, 

“diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties—each defendant must be a 

citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” Diaz v. Davis (In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative 

Litig.), 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff has not alleged damages in excess of the 

Case 4:16-cv-04690-DMR Document 7 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 4
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

statutory minimum or any facts to support the existence of diversity between the parties. 

In sum, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s complaint does not satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B) review because it does not specify any claims against Defendant and fails to 

establish a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. 

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court recommends that the complaint be dismissed with 

leave to amend to remedy the deficiencies noted in this order. The Clerk is directed to reassign 

this case to a District Judge. Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation 

with the district judge within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-2. 

The court refers Plaintiff to the section “Representing Yourself” on the Court’s website, 

located at http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants, as well as the Court’s Legal Help Centers for 

unrepresented parties. In San Francisco, the Legal Help Center is located on the 15th Floor, Room 

2796, of the United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. In Oakland, the 

Legal Help Center is located on the 4th Floor, Room 470S, of the United States Courthouse, 1301 

Clay Street, Oakland.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2016

______________________________________

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-04690-DMR Document 7 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRACEY N. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATTY BOYLE,

Defendant.

Case No.4:16-cv-04690-DMR 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on 10/3/2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office.

Tracey N. Thompson

44 McAllister Street

No. 622

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Dated: 10/3/2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ivy Lerma Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable DONNA M. RYU

Case 4:16-cv-04690-DMR Document 7 Filed 09/30/16 Page 4 of 4