Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01120/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01120-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tanny Elizabeth Miner
Plaintiff
State of California
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TANNY ELIZABETH MINER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-01120 CRB

ORDER

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in federal court without prepayment

of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to pay

such fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Nonetheless, a court is under a continuing duty to

dismiss a case seeking to proceed without the prepayment of fees whenever it determines that

the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For the reasons set forth below, the case will be DISMISSED.

Here, the Court accepts Plaintiff’s representation that she cannot afford the court costs

for this action. Her application to proceed in forma pauperis is therefore GRANTED. The

Court further determines, however, that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s claims,

and further, that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 

Case 3:07-cv-01120-CRB Document 13 Filed 05/25/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff filed her original complaint in this Court on February 23, 2007. After

reviewing the complaint, the Court found it “impossible to determine . . . who is being sued

or what specific acts the defendants are alleged to have committed.” The Court therefore

dismissed the original complaint without prejudice and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended

complaint that (1) identifies each of the specific defendants whose actions have caused

Plaintiff constitutional harm, such that the defendants can be identified and given an

opportunity to respond to the charges against them; and (2) identifies how each of these

defendants has engaged in allegedly unconstitutional action, by making reference to specific

acts or omissions that these various actors have committed. See Sherman v. Yakahi, 549

F.2d at 1290 (“The plaintiff must ‘allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts

which defendants engaged in’ that support the plaintiff’s claim.” (quoting Powell v.

Workmen’s Comp. Bd., 327 F.2d 131, 137 (2d Cir.1964))). 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 27, 2007. The amended complaint

identifies as defendants numerous state agencies and officials, all of whom were involved in

various family court and juvenile court proceedings through which Plaintiff lost custody of

her daughter. In this case, she asserts claims for “racketeering, collusion, conspiracy and

fraud, depravation of rights, converting a right into a crime, treason, infliction of emotional

distress, terrorism, genocide, compelling contract, kidnapping, child endangerment, slavery,

violations of oath in office, violations of first congress, violations of FOIA, violations of

constitutional rights.” The complaint itself does not specify the wrongful acts committed by

each of the approximately forty defendants. But the complaint does include attachments that

set forth details of the custody in which Plaintiff has been engaged since roughly March of

2004. The complaint sets forth demands for three forms of relief: that the Court return

Plaintiff’s child to her custody; that the Court award damages of $15 million; and that the

Court obtain copies of related files from the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

 Having reviewed these materials, the Court concludes that (1) it lacks jurisdiction to

adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claims because none of the named defendants reside in the Northern

District of California and none of the events giving rise to her complaint occurred there, and

Case 3:07-cv-01120-CRB Document 13 Filed 05/25/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2007\1120\Order 5.wpd 3

(2) the factual allegations set forth in the complaint are insufficient to give rise to any of the

constitutional violations alleged in the complaint that might serve as a basis for abrogating

the sovereign immunity of the various defendants.

Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the defendants identified in the amended

complaint, and because the complaint fails to set forth a viable claim with a clear legal theory

and the facts alleged in support it, the amended complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-01120-CRB Document 13 Filed 05/25/07 Page 3 of 3