Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110505_0006447.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-04 02:21:05
Document Index: 363489645

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1331', '§ 2', '§ 1332', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

| Raj Singh; Suman Mehta v. Stephen Lipworth; Steven Finley
Raj Singh; Suman Mehta v. Stephen Lipworth; Steven Finley
RAJ SINGH; SUMAN MEHTA, PLAINTIFFS,v.STEPHEN LIPWORTH; STEVEN FINLEY, DEFENDANTS.
This case, in which plaintiffs are proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiffs seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiffs' declarations makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, the requests to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Determining plaintiffs may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to 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.
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 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).
Here, plaintiffs' complaint alleges that "a judgment was fraudulently obtained against [plaintiff] Raj Singh" and that defendant Lipworth "became assignee to collect" the judgment. Compl., Dckt. No. 1 at 2. The complaint alleges that Lipworth then foreclosed on certain real estate properties owned by plaintiff Mehta for the satisfaction of the judgment against Singh. Id. Plaintiff contends that Lipworth "conspired with the Sacramento Sheriff and the Judicial officers" to place a levy on the properties. Plaintiffs contend that defendant "Steven Finley represented Stephen Lipworth." Id. at 3.
Although plaintiffs' complaint does not allege a federal claim or diversity of the parties, plaintiff's civil cover sheet, which is attached to plaintiff's complaint, states that the action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, in order to state a claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege: (1) the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Upon review of the complaint, it appears that plaintiffs have not identified proper defendants pursuant to § 1983. Plaintiffs fail to allege that the defendants were state actors or that they were otherwise acting under color of law. See Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1999) (The party charged with a constitutional deprivation under § 1983 must be a person who may fairly be said to be a governmental actor) (citation and quotations omitted). Section "1983 excludes from its reach merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrong." Id. (citing American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, plaintiffs fail to identify the constitutional rights the defendants allegedly violated, or explain how their actions resulted in the deprivation of any constitutional right.
Therefore, plaintiffs' complaint will be dismissed. However, plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint and name proper governmental actors, if any can properly be listed as defendants. 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 plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they shall clearly set forth the allegations against each defendant and shall specify a basis for this court's subject matter jurisdiction.
Additionally, plaintiffs are 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 plaintiffs file an amended complaint, the original no longer serves any function in the case. 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 plaintiffs 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.
1. Plaintiffs' requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted.
2. Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.
3. Plaintiffs are 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 "Amended Complaint." Plaintiffs must file an original and two copies of the amended complaint. Failure to timely file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed.