Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01100/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01100-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Seyi Ayodele
Defendant
Candace Smith
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CANDACE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEYI AYODELE,

Defendant.

No. 1:24-cv-01100-JLT-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 6)

21-DAY DEADLINE

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

Plaintiff Candace Smith, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil complaint 

on September 16, 2024. (Docs. 1, 4.) Plaintiff filed a document titled “First Amended Complaint” 

(Doc. 3) on September 17, 2024, which the Court interpreted as a supplement to Plaintiff’s initial 

complaint (see Doc. 5).

On October 1, 2024, the undersigned screened the initial complaint, found that it failed to 

state any cognizable claims, and granted Plaintiff thirty days leave to file an amended complaint 

curing the pleading deficiencies identified in the order. (Doc. 5.) On October 22, 2024, Plaintiff 

timely filed an amended complaint, which is before the Court for screening. (Doc. 6.)

Case 1:24-cv-01100-JLT-SKO Document 9 Filed 11/08/24 Page 1 of 8
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

After screening Plaintiff’s amended complaint, the undersigned finds that despite the 

explicit recitation of the deficiencies of the initial complaint, Plaintiff has failed to plead any 

cognizable claims sufficient to state a basis for federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the undersigned 

recommends that Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without leave 

to amend.

B. Screening Requirement and Standard

In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen 

each case and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines the allegation of poverty is 

untrue, or the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that a 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. Lopez 

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

The Court’s screening of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) is governed by the 

following standards. A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim 

for two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable 

legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff 

must allege a minimum factual and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each 

defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See, 

e.g., Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block, 932 

F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).

C. Summary of the Complaint

Plaintiff prepared her amended complaint using the general complaint form provided by 

this Court. The complaint lists Seyi Ayodale as the defendant. (Doc. 6 at 1, 2.) In the section titled 

“Basis for Jurisdiction,” “Federal question” is selected. (Id. at 3.) In the section eliciting “specific 

federal statutes, federal treaties, and/or provisions of the United States Constitution that are at issue 

in the case,” Plaintiff responds, “violation of my civil rights.” (Id. 4.) The “Amount in 

Case 1:24-cv-01100-JLT-SKO Document 9 Filed 11/08/24 Page 2 of 8
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

Controversy” is listed as “Undisclosed. She got paid 5 million from a star singer selling my phone’s 

music & pictures.” (Id. at 5.)

In the “Statement of Claim” section of the amended complaint, Plaintiff writes:

Seyi Ayodele has attempted to murder myself & has murder [sic] my mother. She 

is a killer serial killer & set to murder many w/c her drug cocktail. Violated of civil 

order and rights a Nigerian Terrorist. Upon such the complaint is sighting that Seyi 

Ayodele formed a mafia to commence an [sic] robbery & attack against Candace 

Smith a teacher/nurse/musician in order to rob and sell off Candace Smith [sic] 

things. Violating America’s trust and Candace Smith [sic] civil rights. The claim 

involves medical and psychological damages after Mercy enter [sic] hotel at 

University Square Hotel & drugged Plaintiff with a killer cocktail of meth, cocaine, 

and heroin.

(Doc. 1 at 5.) As for the relief sought, Plaintiff writes, “The Plaintiff is asking for return of stolen 

items from home & monetary & future medical payments associated w/c her killing my disabled 

mother.” (Id. at 6.)

The Civil Cover Sheet, filed with the original complaint, lists the nature of suit as “Other 

Personal Injury,” and the cause of action is described as “personal injury attempted murder.” (Doc. 

1-1.)

D. Pleading Requirements Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 

exceptions.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002). A complaint must contain 

“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 8(a)(2). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512 (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a 

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff 

must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its 

face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Factual allegations are accepted 

Case 1:24-cv-01100-JLT-SKO Document 9 Filed 11/08/24 Page 3 of 8
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

4

as true, but legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

The Court construes pleadings of pro se litigants liberally and affords them the benefit of 

any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). However, “the 

liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations,” not their legal theories. 

Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). Furthermore, “a liberal interpretation of a civil 

rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled,” Bruns 

v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted), and courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient to state a cognizable 

claim, and “facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability” fall short. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff Has Not Pleaded Any Cognizable Basis for Federal Court Jurisdiction

1. Legal Standard

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and their power to adjudicate is limited to 

that granted by Congress. U.S. v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2000). Federal courts are 

presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions, and the burden to establish the contrary rests 

upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 

(1994). Generally, there are two bases for subject matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction 

and diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction over 

“all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “A case 

‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the 

vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.’” 

Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 

Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)). The presence 

or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” 

Case 1:24-cv-01100-JLT-SKO Document 9 Filed 11/08/24 Page 4 of 8
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

5

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under this rule, “federal jurisdiction exists 

only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly 

pleaded complaint.” Id.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, district courts have diversity jurisdiction only over “all civil 

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest 

and costs,” and the action is between: (1) “citizens of different States;” (2) “citizens of a State and 

citizens or subjects of a foreign state;” (3) “citizens of different States and in which citizens or 

subjects of a foreign state are additional parties;” and (4) “a foreign state . . . as plaintiff and citizens 

of a State or of different States.”

This Court has an independent duty to consider its own subject-matter jurisdiction, whether 

or not the issue is raised by the parties (id.), and must dismiss an action over which it lacks 

jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505 

F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974) (“It has long been held that a judge can dismiss sua sponte for lack 

of jurisdiction.”). The burden is on the federal plaintiff to allege facts establishing that jurisdiction 

exists to hear their claim(s). See Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996) (“A 

party invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving the actual existence of 

subject matter jurisdiction.”).

2. Analysis

Plaintiff seeks to assert a claim for “violation of [her] civil rights.” (Doc. 6 at 4.) Title 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 is the “mechanism for plaintiffs to vindicate their federal civil rights through federal 

law.” Hogan v. Robinson, No. CIV-F-03-6408-AWI-LJO, 2005 WL 8176432, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 

31, 2005). To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant (1) acted 

under color of state law, and (2) deprived them of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. 

Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Marsh v. Cnty. of 

San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing “under color of state law”).

With regard to the first element, private parties are not generally acting under color of state 

law for the purposes of Section 1983. Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707–08 (9th Cir. 1991) 

(“Careful adherence to the ‘state action’ requirement preserves an area of individual freedom by 

Case 1:24-cv-01100-JLT-SKO Document 9 Filed 11/08/24 Page 5 of 8
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

6

limiting the reach of federal law and federal judicial power. It also avoids imposing on the State, 

its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed.”) 

(quoting Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936–37 (1982)). There exist, however, some 

circumstances in which the actions of a private actor may render that actor liable under section 

1983. Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic Festival Ass’n, 541 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

Specifically, a plaintiff must show that “the conduct allegedly causing the deprivation of a federal 

right [was] fairly attributable to the State.” Lugar, 457 U.S. at 937. Here, Defendant Seyi Ayodale 

is a private party, and Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support a finding that they have acted such 

that their conduct is “fairly attributable” to the government. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to 

state a cognizable Section 1983 claim.

To the extent Plaintiff attempts to bring a claim for “attempted murder” or “robbery” (Doc. 

6 at 5; Doc. 1-1), “such criminal claims may not be pursued in a civil lawsuit.” Grimes v. A1-Auto 

Care, No. 21-cv-02093-LL-BLM, 2022 WL 959273, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2022). See United 

States v. Duran, 41 F.3d 540, 544 (9th Cir. 1994) (“If the prosecutor has probable cause to believe 

a defendant committed a crime, the decision of whether to prosecute and the charges to be filed 

rests with the prosecutor.”). To the extent that Plaintiff intends to pursue a claim for “personal 

injury” against Defendant (Doc. 6 at 5; Doc. 1-1), such a claim would be a state law claim sounding 

in tort—not a federal claim. In sum, Plaintiff has not articulated any cognizable federal claim over 

which this Court may assert federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Although not alleged as a basis for jurisdiction in the amended complaint, the undersigned 

further determines whether there is complete diversity between the parties to invoke jurisdiction to 

hear any state law claims. In the Civil Cover Sheet, Plaintiff indicates she and Defendant are both 

citizens of Fresno (Doc. 1-1), which is in the State of California. Since Plaintiff and Defendant are 

citizens of the same state, complete diversity is lacking, and Plaintiff cannot proceed in federal 

court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Garcia-Cardenas v. Immigration 

Legal Servs., APC, No. 1:13-CV-01065-AWI, 2013 WL 4542223, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2013) 

(citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806) (no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as 

any of the defendants)). Because there is no subject matter jurisdiction, the undersigned must 

Case 1:24-cv-01100-JLT-SKO Document 9 Filed 11/08/24 Page 6 of 8
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

7

recommend dismissal.

B. Leave to Amend Would Be Futile

When dismissing a complaint, the Ninth Circuit has stated that “leave to amend should be 

granted unless the district court determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the 

allegation of other facts.” Bly–Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal 

quotation marks omitted); Chang v. Chen, 80 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir. 1996). If it is clear after 

careful consideration that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss 

without leave to amend. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995); see also 

Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013); accord Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“Courts 

are not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”). 

Further amendment is not appropriate in this case. Like the initial complaint, the amended

complaint has not set forth any cognizable federal claim, and there is no diversity jurisdiction over 

any state law claim due to a lack of complete diversity of citizenship. When dismissing the initial

complaint, the undersigned advised Plaintiff could file an amended complaint if she believed that 

she could set forth a basis for subject matter jurisdiction and allege cognizable claims. (See Doc. 

5 at 6.) Plaintiff has repeatedly demonstrated that she is unable to plead facts invoking the Court’s 

jurisdiction. Thus, the undersigned declines to give any further leave to amend and recommends 

that the action be dismissed without prejudice.

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend.

These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B). Within twentyone (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 

the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 

Case 1:24-cv-01100-JLT-SKO Document 9 Filed 11/08/24 Page 7 of 8
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

8

834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01100-JLT-SKO Document 9 Filed 11/08/24 Page 8 of 8