Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01715/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01715-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Monica Mitchell
Defendant
Shirly A. Peacemaker
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

SHIRLY A. PEACEMAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONICA MITCHELL,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:21-cv-01715-KJM-JDP (PS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

ECF No. 2

SCREENING ORDER

ECF No. 1

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff has filed a complaint about a notice of rent increase, but it contains no basis for 

federal jurisdiction and no allegations against the named defendant. I will give plaintiff an 

opportunity to amend her complaint before recommending that it be dismissed. I will also grant 

plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 

 Screening and Pleading Requirements

Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must 

dismiss any action filed in forma pauperis that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 

suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Case 2:21-cv-01715-DC-JDP Document 5 Filed 05/11/22 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 complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Analysis

Plaintiff seeks to challenge a notice of rent increase that she received from All Star MHP 

because the notice did not have an Office of Management valid control number or a valid 

signature. ECF No. 1 at 5. She wishes to avoid paying her $35 rent increase. Id. at 6. 

There is, however, no apparent basis for federal jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim. Federal courts 

have limited jurisdiction, and plaintiff’s dispute over the wording of her rental increase notice 

does not invoke federal question jurisdiction. She lists parts of the Paperwork Reduction Act and 

corresponding regulations in her complaint, but the Act regulates federal agencies, not private 

landlords. See Dole v. United Steelworkers of Am., 494 U.S. 26, 32-33 (1990). Plaintiff also does 

not explain who defendant is or what her connection is to the alleged claim. 

Case 2:21-cv-01715-DC-JDP Document 5 Filed 05/11/22 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

I will allow plaintiff a chance to amend her complaint before recommending that this 

action be dismissed. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 

will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face 

without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 

complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended 

complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each 

defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “Amended 

Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended 

complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 

Accordingly, it is ordered that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted.

2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an 

Amended Complaint or advise the court she wishes to stand by her current complaint. If she 

selects the latter option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 

3. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2022 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01715-DC-JDP Document 5 Filed 05/11/22 Page 3 of 3