Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02024/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02024-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Channel 10
Defendant
Ram Sing
Plaintiff
George Warren
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAM SING,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGE WARREN & CHANNEL 10,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-2024-MCE-KJN PS

ORDER

On September 27, 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

and dismissed plaintiff’s original complaint with leave to amend.

1

 (ECF No. 3.) Thereafter, on 

October 5, 2016, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, which remains pending for screening in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 4.) For the reasons discussed below, the court 

dismisses plaintiff’s first amended complaint, but with leave to amend. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if it 

determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails 

to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune 

defendant. 

 

1

This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

Case 2:16-cv-02024-MCE-KJN Document 5 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 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

2

A federal court has an independent duty to assess whether federal subject matter 

jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. 

Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had a duty 

to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties 

raised the issue or not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The court must sua sponte dismiss the case if, at any time, it determines that it lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A federal district court generally has original 

jurisdiction over a civil action when: (1) a federal question is presented in an action “arising 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” or (2) there is complete diversity of 

citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). 

In this case, plaintiff generally alleges that defendants Channel 10 and George Warren, 

ostensibly a reporter for Channel 10, violated plaintiff’s rights under the United States and 

California constitutions by spreading propaganda about plaintiff, misrepresenting to the public 

that plaintiff took marijuana from California to Nevada, and trespassing on plaintiff’s property in 

the course of performing their news media work. (See generally ECF No. 4.)

As the court noted in its previous order dismissing plaintiff’s original complaint, a claim 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 generally does not lie against a private individual or business entity that 

does not act under color of state law. See Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 444 (9th Cir. 2002). 

However, a private individual’s action can amount to state action under certain circumstances. 

See Franklin, 312 F.3d at 445 (outlining four potential tests: (1) the public function test, (2) the 

joint action test, (3) the state compulsion test, or (4) the governmental nexus test). In his original 

complaint, plaintiff attempted to invoke the joint action test by alleging some type of conspiracy 

between defendants and a local sheriff, but such allegations were noted to be entirely vague and 

conclusory. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint fares no better. Although the first amended 

complaint makes several references to “joint action” and a “civil conspiracy,” it fails to allege any 

non-conclusory facts plausibly suggesting joint action between defendants and any state actor. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint does not state a cognizable federal claim sufficient to 

invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction. Furthermore, there is no diversity of citizenship 

Case 2:16-cv-02024-MCE-KJN Document 5 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 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

3

jurisdiction, because plaintiff and defendants are all citizens of California. Consequently, the 

court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Accordingly, the court dismisses plaintiff’s complaint, but with leave to amend. If 

plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, it shall be clearly captioned “Second Amended 

Complaint” and shall cure the jurisdictional deficiencies identified above. Plaintiff is informed 

that the court cannot refer to a prior complaint or other filing in order to make plaintiff’s second

amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete 

in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint 

supersedes the prior pleadings, and once the second amended complaint is filed, the original 

complaint and first amended complaint no longer serve any function in the case. 

Finally, nothing in this order requires plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. If 

plaintiff concludes that he is unable to cure such federal jurisdictional deficiencies, he may 

instead elect to file an action in state court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is dismissed, but with leave to amend.

2. Within 28 days of this order, plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint in 

accordance with this order. Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this 

action in federal court, plaintiff shall file a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action 

without prejudice within 28 days of this order.

3. Failure to file either a second amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal 

without prejudice by the required deadline may result in dismissal of the action with 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 12, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-02024-MCE-KJN Document 5 Filed 10/12/16 Page 3 of 3