Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02386/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02386-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tahir Ahmed
Defendant
Safina Ayaz
Defendant
Samina Malik
Defendant
Humayun Manzoor
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HUMAYUN MANZOOR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TAHIR AHMED, SAMINA MALIK, and 

SAFINA AYAZ, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-2386-JAM-EFB PS 

ORDER 

 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the 

undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff seeks 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. His declaration makes the 

showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 2. Accordingly, the request to 

proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

 Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required 

inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines 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.

 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 

Case 2:13-cv-02386-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 08/05/14 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

fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 

(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 

his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 

a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are 

true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 

legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 

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

 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations 

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), 

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the 

plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy 

the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) 

“requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds 

upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing 

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

 Additionally, a federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only 

those cases authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, 

confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction 

requires that the complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a 

“case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be 

authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal 

jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity 

jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the 

matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World 

Case 2:13-cv-02386-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 08/05/14 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

Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction 

of the federal courts unless demonstrated otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys 

Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). 

 The complaint alleges that plaintiff’s mother died in March of 1981. ECF No. 1 at 1. 

After his mother’s death plaintiff traveled to Pakistan, where his mother apparently lived, but was 

only able to stay for two weeks as he was attending college in Chicago. Id. Plaintiff claims that 

at the time of his mother’s death she had the following assets: (1) 200,000.00 Pakistani Rupees, 

(2) residential property in Pakistan valued at approximately $198,095.00, and (3) commercial 

property in Pakistan valued at approximately $28,571.00. Id. at 1-2. The complaint further 

alleges that plaintiff “is a Sunny Muslim and according to the Islamic (Mohammedan) law of 

inheritance, in the absence of a written will . . . assets are divided in the following ratio: A son’s 

share is double that of a daughter’s.” Id. at 2. The complaint states that defendants, Commander 

Tahir Ahmed, Samina Malik, and Safina Ayaz, are plaintiff’s siblings. He alleges that these 

siblings “hatched a conspiracy and divided the assets of [their] mother among themselves and 

deprived [plaintiff of his] share of the assets,” which he claims is valued at $57,143.00. Id. at 2-3. 

Plaintiff also claims that he could not have brought this lawsuit at the time of his mother’s death 

because he was busy with his college courses. Id. 

 The complaint as drafted does not establish that this court has subject matter jurisdiction 

over plaintiff’s claim(s). The complaint does not allege any specific causes of action nor do the 

facts alleged support a federal claim for relief. Instead, they suggest a probate dispute, a state law 

matter not ordinarily cognizable in federal court. Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 298–99 

(2006); Harris v. Zion’s Bank, 317 U.S. 447, 450 (1943). Further, even assuming a claim that 

could support diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy requirement is not satisfied. While 

the complaint does allege diversity of citizenship of the parties, the complaint specifically 

requests that defendants be order to pay plaintiff his share of the alleged inheritance, which 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-02386-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 08/05/14 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

plaintiff values at $57,143. 1 Id. at 2-3. Accordingly, the amount in controversy appears to be 

less than $75,000 and therefore this court lacks diversity jurisdiction over this matter. 

 Therefore, the complaint will be dismissed. However, plaintiff is granted leave to file an 

amended complaint, if he can allege a basis for this court’s jurisdiction, as well as a cognizable 

legal theory and sufficient facts in support of that cognizable legal theory. 2 Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro se litigants an 

opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to 

file an amended complaint, the amended complaint shall clearly set forth the allegations against 

defendant and shall specify a basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Any amended 

complaint shall plead plaintiff’s claims in “numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as 

practicable to a single set of circumstances,” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

10(b), and shall be in double-spaced text on paper that bears line numbers in the left margin, as 

required by Eastern District of California Local Rules 130(b) and 130(c). Any amended 

complaint shall also use clear headings to delineate each claim alleged and against which 

defendant or defendants the claim is alleged, as required by Rule 10(b), and must plead clear facts 

that support each claim under each header. 

 Additionally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to 

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

complete in itself. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the 

original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, once 

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves any function in the case. 

///// 

 1

 The complaint alleges that plaintiff is a resident of California, defendant Commander 

Jahir Ahmed is a resident of Texas, defendant Samina Malik is a resident of Michigan, and 

defendant Safina Ayaz is a resident of Texas. ECF No. 1 at 1-2. 

2

 While it is unclear precisely what cause of action plaintiff intends to assert, it is worth 

noting that in the event plaintiff does identify a claim for relief in an amended complaint such 

claim may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations given that plaintiff’s mother passed 

away more than thirty years ago. 

Case 2:13-cv-02386-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 08/05/14 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

Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not 

alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 

1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to 

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order 

may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See Local Rule 110.

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted; 

 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as provided herein; and 

 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must 

be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to timely file an amended complaint in 

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed. 

DATED: August 5, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02386-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 08/05/14 Page 5 of 5