Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02440/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02440-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alameda County Social Services Agency
Defendant
Luna Chuon
Defendant
VDIS
Defendant
Jacqueline Williams
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACQUELINE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL 

SERVICES AGENCY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-02440-JCS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE 

DENIED AND COMPLAINT SHOULD 

NOT BE DISMISSED

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jacqueline Williams, pro se, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis

(dkt. 2). For the reasons discussed below, Williams is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why her 

application should not be denied, by filing a revised application no later than September 3, 2019. 

If Williams does not file an amended application, the undersigned will recommend that the 

application be denied and that the case be dismissed if Williams does not pay the filing fee.

Williams is also ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why her complaint should not be 

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on which relief may be 

granted. Williams shall file a response or amended complaint addressing the deficiencies 

identified below no later than September 3, 2019. If Williams does not file a response or 

amended complaint resolving those deficiencies, the undersigned will recommend that the case be 

dismissed.

The case management conference previously set for August 9, 2019 is CONTINUED to 

November 1, 2019 at 2:00 PM. No hearing or conference in this case will occur on August 9, 

2019.

II. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, “any court of the United States may authorize the commencement

Case 3:19-cv-02440-JCS Document 5 Filed 08/06/19 Page 1 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

. . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an 

affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to 

pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Williams’s application to proceed in forma pauperis omits several answers necessary to 

determine whether Williams can pay the filing fee in this action, including with respect to 

Question 1, the date Williams was last employed, and with respect to Question 7, whether 

Williams has a bank account, the balance of any such account, whether Williams owns any cash, 

and if so, how much. Williams’s application also indicates in response to Question 2 that she has 

received rent payments in the last twelve months, but does not indicate the amount of such 

payments. Without answers to those questions, the Court cannot determine whether Williams is 

eligible to proceed without paying the filing fee.

III. WILLIAMS’S COMPLAINT

A. Legal Standard

Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and is granted leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 

(1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see 

Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure provides that a pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint that lacks such statement fails to state a claim 

and must be dismissed.

In determining whether a plaintiff fails to state a claim, the court assumes that all factual 

allegations in the complaint are true. Parks Sch. of Bus. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th 

Cir. 1995). However, “the tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true is 

inapplicable to legal conclusions [and] mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The pertinent 

question is whether the factual allegations, assumed to be true, “state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Thus, to meet this requirement, the 

Case 3:19-cv-02440-JCS Document 5 Filed 08/06/19 Page 2 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

complaint must be supported by factual allegations. Id. Moreover, although courts generally must 

accept a plaintiff’s factual allegations as true even if they appear to be unlikely, the Supreme Court 

has made clear that a complaint may be dismissed as “frivolous” under § 1915 where it is based on 

“fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (superseded by statute 

on other grounds as recognized in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000)).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Accordingly, “federal courts have a continuing independent 

obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists” over a given claim. Leeson v. 

Transamerica Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 975 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks 

and citations omitted). Two of the most common grounds for federal subject matter jurisdiction 

are “federal question jurisdiction” under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which allows federal courts to hear 

claims arising under federal law, and “diversity jurisdiction” under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), which 

allows federal courts to hear claims arising under state law if the plaintiff and defendant are 

citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Where the complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, as is the case here, courts must 

“construe the pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. 

Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). “A district court should not dismiss a 

pro se complaint without leave to amend unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the 

complaint could not be cured by amendment.’” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 

2012) (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203−04 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam)). 

Further, when it dismisses the complaint of a pro se litigant with leave to amend, “the district court 

must provide the litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to ensure that the 

litigant uses the opportunity to amend effectively.” Id. (quoting Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Without the benefit of a statement of deficiencies, the pro se litigant 

will likely repeat previous errors.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th 

Cir. 1988) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)).

B. Allegations of Williams’s Complaint

Williams’s factual allegations read as follows:

Case 3:19-cv-02440-JCS Document 5 Filed 08/06/19 Page 3 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5. On and about January of 2019; plaintiff file for hearing concerning 

food stamp and why Alameda took sixty dollars of Cal-fresh and no 

one response. Plaintiff ask for another hearing and hearing was 

granted; plaintiff fax more information to State of State-Health & 

Human Services Agency; Department of Social Services, State

Hearing Division in Sacramento February 12, 2019 to show just 

ignorance VDIS was or whoever was using defendant name! Plaintiff 

received letter stated that plaintiff cancel the hearing; plaintiff 

recollection never cancels the State hearing and plaintiff was very 

clear.

6. Plaintiff will keep it real and address racist concern; when it comes 

to the State of California “Hire Help” who call themselves 

Administrative Law Judge. who have and show malfunction? With 

attitude toward African-American there nothing stupid nor ignorance 

about this African-American trust.

7. On and about April of 2019 plaintiff call the Department of Social 

Services and ask for hearing over the telephone and received denied 

letter. Plaintiff informs the defendant try to explain why plaintiff 

wanted hearing. The defendant was rude and cruel and refused to do 

intake over the telephone. Plaintiff inform the defendant that plaintiff 

just had another major surgery and the first surgery was February 25,

2019 and the second was March 29, 2019 and plaintiff could not see 

that well. Defendant put the plaintiff on hold and return and took the 

intake over the telephone.

8. Plaintiff appointment was on and about April 29, 2019 section 

15015 of regulation mean submission of medical claim bill by 

electronic plaintiff claim was reject that day. Plaintiff has another 

appointment May 14, 2019 and plaintiff cannot see doctor who did 

the surgery on plaintiff left eye! plaintiff is very upset with the

repeatedly racist profile by the defendant(s) Alameda County Social 

Service Agency and State of California regulation and the defendant 

abusive of power of the law!

9. Plaintiff already lost sight around in the outside of the eye; plaintiff 

is stressful and have migraine headache from defendant(s) alameda 

County Social Services Agency in the treatment of this AfricanAmerican female. And refused to provide plaintiff with Medical 

benefits; plaintiff did recertification for Medical and Cal-fresh and 

any other document information giving Alameda County Social 

Services Agency at 2000 San Pablo Ave, Oakland, Ca.

10. Plaintiff repeatedly been to Alameda County Social Services and 

saw several hires helps employees. plaintiff also notices about 

notorious Defendant(s) do-not like if plaintiff is being obedience 

toward defendant(s) there always price to paid! Plaintiff call it 

“Passion of Hatred of Crime.”

According Fair Hearings; Appeals, DHCS, and entities acting on 

behalf of States agencies with regard to Medi-Cal eligibility or 

benefits (including failure to take action) may be appealed by

requesting an administrative law hearing (referred to as a “fair 

Hearing’). 22Cal Code Regs 5095. If benefits have already been 

Case 3:19-cv-02440-JCS Document 5 Filed 08/06/19 Page 4 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

terminated, the applicant can request that benefits continue during the 

appeal process, 42 CFR 43l.230(a). Terminated benefits must be 

reinstated until a hearing decision is rendered if (1) the agency’s 

action occurred without the required advance notice to the applicants. 

This some of Alameda County Social Services policy for particular 

race

11. Plaintiff do-not want another hearing after dealing with State of 

California defendant(s) ‘’HIRE HELP” plaintiff felt like it was 

LYNCHING PARTY; plaintiff is aware of lynching plaintiff is from 

New Orleans and know about KKK from the South their sporting 

activity lynching African-American man! Plaintiff will not drop this 

case at all and plaintiff will alert other who needs to know what an 

ongoing problem in California that deal with Mexican that abuse the 

system and reporting falsifying information to social security and 

inform plaintiff to contact the agency..

Compl. (dkt. 1) at 3–4, ¶¶ 6–11. Following those allegations, Williams’s complaint recites partial 

legal standards for “willful misconduct” and “oppression” under California law, and demands 

relief including $50,000 in compensatory damages, $50,000 in “Oppression Damages,” and 

$75,000 in attorneys’ fees. Id. at 5. Williams names as defendants: (1) “Alameda County Social 

Services Agency”; (2) “Luna Chuon, Social Services Agency, Oakland”; and (3) “VDIS, Alameda 

social Services Agency, Oakland.” Id. at 2.

C. Williams’s Complaint Fails to State a Federal Claim

Williams’s complaint does not clearly assert any basis for federal subject matter 

jurisdiction. Because Williams is a resident of California suing agencies and an employee of a 

local government in California, it is unlikely that she can establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a), which applies only where the plaintiff in a case is not a citizen of the same state 

as any defendant. 

The Court therefore likely has jurisdiction, if at all, under § 1331, but Williams identifies 

no federal law giving rise to any claims. Although the complaint includes references to 

“lynching” and “attitude toward African-American[s],” there are no factual allegations plausibly 

supporting a conclusion that any action by Defendants was based on Williams’s race in violation 

of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or any other federal law. Similarly, while the complaint includes references 

to Williams’s medical issues, Williams does not allege that Defendants discriminated against her 

based on disability, and includes no factual allegations plausibly supporting such a claim under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act or any other federal law. The core allegation of the complaint, in 

Case 3:19-cv-02440-JCS Document 5 Filed 08/06/19 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Northern District of California

its current form, appears to be that Williams was denied certain benefits under state law. Such 

denial is not, standing alone, grounds for any claim under federal law. Williams is therefore 

ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, without leave to amend.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Williams is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this 

case should not be dismissed by filing, no later than September 3, 2019 both: (1) an amended 

application to proceed in forma pauperis; and (2) either an amended complaint or a response 

arguing why her current complaint is sufficient. 

Any amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order 

(19-cv-02440) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an 

amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaint, any amended complaint may not 

incorporate claims or allegations of Williams’s original complaint by reference, but instead must 

include all of the facts and claims Williams wishes to present and all of the defendants she wishes 

to sue. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262.

Williams, who is not represented by counsel, is encouraged to consult with the Federal Pro 

Bono Project’s Legal Help Center in either of the Oakland or San Francisco federal courthouses 

for assistance. The San Francisco Legal Help Center office is located in Room 2796 on the 15th 

floor at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. The Oakland office is located in

Room 470-S on the 4th floor at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. Appointments can be 

made by calling (415) 782-8982, signing up in the appointment book located outside either office, 

or emailing federalprobonoproject@sfbar.org. Telephone appointments are available. Lawyers at 

the Legal Help Center can provide basic assistance to parties representing themselves but cannot 

provide legal representation

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2019

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02440-JCS Document 5 Filed 08/06/19 Page 6 of 6