Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00395/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00395-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Olajuwon Hanssebastien Labeyrie
Plaintiff
Maryam M. Mujali
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

OLAJUWON HANSSEBASTIEN 

LABEYRIE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARYAM M. MUJALI,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:16-cv-00395-DAD-BAM 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS 

(Doc. 3)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

SCREENING ORDER

Plaintiff Olajuwon Hanssebastien Labeyrie (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se in this civil 

action. Plaintiff alleges that defendant has tried to publicly humiliate him by saying she was 

afraid that he was going to rape and by pursuing a court case against him for harassment. 

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on March 24, 2016, is currently before the Court for screening.

Request to Proceed without Payment of Fees

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to Title 28 of the 

United States Code section 1915(a). Plaintiff has made the showing required by section 1915(a), 

and accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Screening Requirement

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro per. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is 

Case 1:16-cv-00395-DAD-BAM Document 4 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge 

unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any 

doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-1123 (9th Cir. 2012), 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but to survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims 

must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to 

reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 

F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not 

sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

The Defendant Has tried to publicly tried to humiliate me By saying afraid I was 

going to Rape Her; as well as tried to Recently get a Court case against me for 

Harassment which was denied Because we haven’t had contact in a year. She’s 

going out of her way to Ruin my life. 

(Doc. 1 at 5) (as written). Plaintiff contends that this could affect his future earnings 

because the first thing that pops up about him on google is the harassment case and his 

public reputation is ruined. (Id.). Plaintiff asks the court for $50,000 in punitive 

Case 1:16-cv-00395-DAD-BAM Document 4 Filed 04/22/16 Page 2 of 5
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

damages for the false claims. (Id. at 6). Plaintiff contends that this Court has diversity 

jurisdiction over his claims. 

DISCUSSION

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject 

matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases in which the United States 

Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 

U.S. 375, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1677 (1994). To proceed in federal court, Plaintiff’s complaint must 

establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are presumptively without 

jurisdiction over civil actions, and the burden to establish the contrary rests upon the party 

asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377, 114 S.Ct. at 1677. Lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the court sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v. 

Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594 595 (9th Cir. 1996); Demery v. 

Kupperman, 7356 F.2d 1139, 1149 n. 8 (9th Cir. 1984). “Nothing is to be more jealously guarded 

by a court than its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what its power rests upon. Without jurisdiction it is 

nothing.” In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.1988), overruled on other grounds by 

Partington v. Gedan, 923 F.2d 686, 688 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). There are two bases for 

original jurisdiction: (1) diversity jurisdiction, or (2) federal question jurisdiction.

1. Diversity Jurisdiction

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

actions “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,” and where the 

matter is between “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 

Here, Plaintiff seeks $50,000 in “punitive damages,” which the Court construes as the 

amount in controversy. However, as alleged, the amount in controversy does not reach the 

jurisdictional amount required for diversity jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff also has not alleged that the parties’ citizenship is completely diverse. The 

complaint indicates that both Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of California. If the parties are

all California citizens, this destroys the requisite “complete diversity.” See Cook v. AVI Casino 

Case 1:16-cv-00395-DAD-BAM Document 4 Filed 04/22/16 Page 3 of 5
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

Enterprises, Inc., 548 F.3d 718, 722 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1221, 129 S.Ct. 2159, 

173 L.Ed.2d 1156 (2009). Accordingly, this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction.

2. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have 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, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 

(1983)). The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the “wellpleaded complaint rule.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 963 

L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only 

when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” 

Id.

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint appears to allege a California state law claim for defamation. 

Cal. Civ. Code § 44 (defamation is libel or slander); Cal. Civ. Code § 45 (“Libel is a false and 

unprivileged publication . . . , which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or 

obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in 

his occupation.”). As currently alleged, the complaint does not contain any allegation of a 

violation arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Accordingly, this

Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege subject matter jurisdiction. However, as Plaintiff is 

proceeding pro se, the Court will provide him with the opportunity to file a first amended 

complaint in the event he can allege facts establishing this Court’s jurisdiction. Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding 

new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 

2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).

Case 1:16-cv-00395-DAD-BAM Document 4 Filed 04/22/16 Page 4 of 5
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

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

the named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-

79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be 

[sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555

(citations omitted).

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Therefore, Plaintiff’s first

amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded 

pleading.” Local Rule 220.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

first amended complaint; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, 

this action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00395-DAD-BAM Document 4 Filed 04/22/16 Page 5 of 5