Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02090/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02090-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Herman Abalos
Defendant
Jason A. Gonzalez
Plaintiff
Cindy Kruser
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON A. GONZALEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HERMAN ABALOS, and 

CINDY KRUSER,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-02090-LJO-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BE 

DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND

OBJECTIONS DUE: 28 DAYS

(Doc. 1)

I. INTRODUCTION

On December 31, 2014, Plaintiff Jason A. Gonzalez ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Herman Abalos1and Cindy Kruser. Plaintiff also 

submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which he was ordered to amend. (Docs. 2, 

3.) Plaintiff filed an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis in February 2015, which 

the Court granted. (Docs. 4, 6.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court RECOMMENDS that 

Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that his case stems from a Fresno County Superior Court case where 

Defendant Abalos gave testimony admitting that he assaulted Plaintiff with his weed eater. (Doc. 

 

1

In the attached police report, Defendant Herman Abalos is identified as "Herman Avalos." (See Doc. 1, p. 89.)

Case 1:14-cv-02090-LJO-SKO Document 8 Filed 04/03/15 Page 1 of 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

2

1, p. 3.) Defendant Kruser apparently denied ever seeing Defendant Abalos with a weed eater and 

ostensibly told the police that she saw Defendant Abalos was a cane, which Plaintiff alleges was 

false. From what the Court can glean from the sparse allegations of the complaint and the 

voluminous attachments, Plaintiff became involved in an altercation with a man named Kevin 

Shirey on April 9, 2013.2 (Doc. 1, p. 88.) Kevin Shirey's girlfriend, Defendant Kruser, reported 

the altercation to the police. Defendant Abalos, a neighbor of Kevin Shirey, apparently witnessed 

the altercation when he was outside his home performing yard work. Defendant Abalos reported 

to police that he had seen someone (later identified as Plaintiff (see Doc. 1, p. 91)) advancing on 

Shirey, and Defendant Abalos attempted to get between the two of them by raising his weed eater

at Plaintiff (Doc. 1, p. 90).

Plaintiff claims Defendant Abalos assaulted him during the course of the April 2013 

altercation, and Defendant Kruser made false statements about the incident to the police.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Screening Standard

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

each case, and must dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines the allegation of poverty 

is untrue, or the Court determines the action or appeal 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 the complaint fails 

to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent the deficiencies of the complaint are 

capable of being cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 

banc).

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). 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) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

 

2

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Kevin Shirey in this court captioned Gonzalez v. Shirey, 1:14-cv-01768-LJOBAM, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In that case, Plaintiff appears to allege breach of a rental agreement by Mr. 

Shirey.

Case 1:14-cv-02090-LJO-SKO Document 8 Filed 04/03/15 Page 2 of 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

3

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A complaint may not simply allege a wrong has been 

committed and demand relief. The pleading standard “demands more than an unadorned, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[;]” the complaint must contain “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570). Further, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 

conclusions are not. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

B. There is No Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff's Complaint

The Court must determine whether it has the power to consider the claims alleged within 

the complaint. Federal courts have no power to consider claims for which they lack subject-matter 

jurisdiction. Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986); see also Vacek v. 

United States Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). The 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.”). Subject matter jurisdiction to hear a 

plaintiff’s claim must either “arise under” federal law or be established by diversity jurisdiction.

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. The burden is on the federal plaintiff to allege facts establishing that 

jurisdiction exists to hear his claims. 

Plaintiff's complaint is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, but no cognizable Section 

1983 claim is alleged and no grounds for relief under Section 1983 exists. To state a claim 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right 

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the alleged 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 

U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Plaintiff's assertion that he was assaulted by Defendant Abalos, who is a private actor, does 

not allege a violation of Plaintiff's conditional rights. West, 487 U.S. at 48. Moreover, a private 

individual generally does not act under the color of state law, also an essential element of a 

Case 1:14-cv-02090-LJO-SKO Document 8 Filed 04/03/15 Page 3 of 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

4

Section 1983 claim. See Johnson v. Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 1987); Van Ort v. 

Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Whether the actual individual who

inflicted the injuries acted under color of state law is often a threshold question. Individuals do, 

indeed, have a right to be free from state violations of the constitutional guarantees . . . 

Individuals, however, have no right to be free from the infliction of such harm by private 

actors.").3 As to Defendant Kruser, she is also a private actor, and Plaintiff has failed to allege any 

constitutional violation arising from her conduct. 

At best, Plaintiff's allegations are attempts to state state law claims over which this Court 

also lacks jurisdiction. In the absence of a claim arising under federal law, the Court may have 

jurisdiction if there is complete diversity of the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship 

requires that no defendant have the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v. 

Communities for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam), abrogated on 

other grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 59 U.S. 77 (2010) (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff is a 

citizen of California, and he alleges that Defendant Abalos and Defendant Kruser both reside in 

Fresno, California. As Defendants have the same state citizenship as the Plaintiff, the Court has 

no diversity jurisdiction over this matter. Id.

C. Amendment is Futile 

Ordinarily a pro se plaintiff should be granted leave to amend. Here, however, any 

amendment to state a Section 1983 claim against private individuals under the circumstances 

alleged here would be futile. Moreover, even if Plaintiff were able to allege claims under state 

law, Defendants are both California residents and there is no diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, 

leave to amend would be futile and the action should be dismissed with prejudice. See Cahill v. 

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).

 

3 The Ninth Circuit has held that private actors may act under the color of state law where they have assumed a public 

function, has taken joint action with the government, acted because of governmental compulsion or coercion, or shares 

a nexus of common goals and ties with the government. See Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1092-95 (9th Cir. 

2003).

Case 1:14-cv-02090-LJO-SKO Document 8 Filed 04/03/15 Page 4 of 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

5

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint be 

DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within twentyeight (28) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these 

findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 

district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

839 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02090-LJO-SKO Document 8 Filed 04/03/15 Page 5 of 5