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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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 Nos. 1-3.) Thereafter, 

on October 5, 2016, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 4.) On October 12, 

2016, the court also dismissed the first amended complaint, but again with leave to amend. (ECF 

No. 5.) Subsequently, on November 2, 2016, plaintiff filed the operative second amended 

complaint, which remains pending for screening in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 

6.) For the reasons discussed below, the court recommends that plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint be DISMISSED without further leave to amend.

 

1

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

Case 2:16-cv-02024-MCE-KJN Document 7 Filed 12/07/16 Page 1 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

2

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. 

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 and destroying

plaintiff’s property in the course of performing their news media work.

As the court noted in its previous orders, 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 the prior versions of his 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 second complaint fares no better. Although the second amended complaint makes 

Case 2:16-cv-02024-MCE-KJN Document 7 Filed 12/07/16 Page 2 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

3

several vague references to a civil conspiracy, mutual aid, and a financially beneficial 

relationship, plaintiff yet again fails to allege any non-conclusory facts plausibly suggesting joint 

action between defendants and any state actor. See Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 821 

(9th Cir. 1989) (“To state a claim for a conspiracy to violate one’s constitutional rights under 

section 1983, the plaintiff must state specific facts to support the existence of the claimed 

conspiracy.”). Even though plaintiff claims that defendants were purportedly present during the 

raid(s) of his property, he provides no specific facts suggesting that defendants were present to 

assist law enforcement with the raid as opposed to performing news coverage of the raid. Indeed, 

plaintiff’s bald assertions to the contrary appear entirely implausible and frivolous. 

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 

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

court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

The court has carefully considered whether further leave to amend should be granted. 

Plaintiff has already twice been granted leave to amend to correct the deficiencies identified by 

the court, inter alia, to provide more specific factual allegations regarding the alleged conspiracy 

that could form the basis for a potential federal Section 1983 claim. However, despite receiving 

clear notice of the deficiencies of his claims, plaintiff has failed to cure such deficiencies. 

Therefore, and because plaintiff’s claims also appear implausible and frivolous, the court finds 

that granting further leave to amend would be futile. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 

336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend.

2. The action be dismissed with prejudice.

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

In light of those recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading,

discovery, and motion practice in this action are STAYED pending resolution of those findings 

and recommendations. With the exception of objections to the findings and recommendations 

Case 2:16-cv-02024-MCE-KJN Document 7 Filed 12/07/16 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

4

and non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to further 

motions or other filings until the findings and recommendations are resolved.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: December 6, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-02024-MCE-KJN Document 7 Filed 12/07/16 Page 4 of 4