The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 San Francisco Division
11 DAVID JOHN MOSES, Case No. 21-cv-03520-LB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT
13 v. Re: ECF No. 1
14 CORTE MADERA TOW,
15 Defendant.
16
17 INTRODUCTION
18 The plaintiff David John Moses, who represents himself and is proceeding in forma pauperis,
19 complains that Corte Madera Towing wrongfully towed his car at the direction of a San Rafael
20 police officer.1 Before directing the United States Marshal to serve the defendant with the
21 complaint, the court must screen it for minimal legal viability. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The
22 court lacks federal-question jurisdiction because the plaintiff alleges only deprivation of his car by
23 a private party, and the court lacks diversity jurisdiction because all parties are citizens of
24 California. The plaintiff may amend his complaint by June 21, 2021 to cure the complaint’s
25 deficiencies if he can.
26
27 1 Compl. – ECF No. 1, 1-1 at 1 (citing Cal. Vehicle Code § 260(a)-(b), which defines “commercial
vehicle”), 3 (defendant is Corte Madera Towing, not Tow). Citations refer to material in the Electronic
1 STATEMENT
2 The plaintiff’s complaint consists of two documents, one handwritten and one typed. The
3 handwritten complaint alleges the following:
4 On about 4/10/2021, Corte Madera Tow (CMT) aided and comforted the Enemy to my
country, the United States of America. CMT proceeded to take car and hold. Claiming
5 charged and release orders. They have stolen many cars throughout the years. With little to
no consequences. I want my 1999 Subaru Forester (Silver thorn) back!
6
Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and U.S. citizen needs to be born in Washington, D.C.
7 So this owner Ken, of CMT is committing fraud. Ken is a State Citizen.2
8 The typed complaint alleges the following:
9 Davis John Moses is a Religious man, and an inhabitant of Marin County where the
injustice occurred.
10
On or about 4/10/2021, I received a[n] emergency traffic stop by a known domestic
11 terrorist J. CARPENTER #592. CARPENTER proceeded to steal car, automobile, house
car under armed assault, claiming my automobile was a motor vehicle. Refer to California
12 motor vehicle code 260a,b. From there CORTE MADERA TOW gladly assisted in the
theft. Aided and comforted the enemy to our country by assisting SRPD agent, claiming
13
British Admiralty Maritime Law. Then CORTE MADERA TOW proceeded with extortion
14 of my automobile. Claiming fines/charges/orders from a Foreign Corporation, SAN
RAFAEL POLICE DEPARTMENT (SRPD). Claiming British Admiralty Maritime Law,
15 against a[n] American National who has Sovereignty.
16 CORTE MADERA TOW exceeded its jurisdiction, and because CORTE MADERA TOW
exceeded its jurisdiction, the Executor of the DAVID JOHN MOSES ESTATE was
17 severely injured, by loss of automobile in my possession for decades.
18
Pray for relief of $1,000,000,000.00.3
19 The plaintiff attached a “Notice of Stored Vehicle” to his complaint that shows that Corte
20 Madera Towing towed a car (presumably his) on April 10, 2021. The Notice contains the
21 following hand-written information: “$240.00 TOW, $70.00 A DAY.”4 The plaintiff also attached
22 a “General Affidavit” in which he attests to the following:
23 U.S. citizens must be born in WASHINGTON D.C. U.S citizens are livestock in the
British Corporation the UNITED STATES. The British Corporation UNITED STATES
24 was Established in 1871. The British Corporation UNITED STATES was licensed in
VIRGINIA. The British Corporation UNITED STATES was franchised out of
25
26
2 Id. – ECF No. 1 at 1.
27
3 Id. – ECF No. 1-1 at 1.
WASHINGTON D.C. (District of Columbia). District of Columbia is owned by the Bank
1
of LONDON. Bank of LONDON is owned by the UNITED NATIONS. American
2 National can only be tried by a jury of American Nationals. David John Moses is a[n]
American National. David John Moses does not have to ask permission for an inherited
3 right. Title 18 must be enforced, when livestock injured a[n] American National.5
4
5 GOVERNING LAW
6 1. Jurisdiction
7 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guar. Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511
8 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). They “have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the
9 scope of their jurisdiction.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011).
10 There are two ways to establish the court’s jurisdiction: federal-question jurisdiction and diversity
11 jurisdiction. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). There is federal-question
12 jurisdiction if the case “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
13 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For diversity jurisdiction, the opposing parties must be citizens of different
14 states, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
15
16 2. Sua Sponte Screening – 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
17 A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is
18 subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent that it is
19 frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
20 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v.
21 Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000)
22 (en banc). Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an in forma pauperis complaint
23 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the United States Marshals to serve
24 the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. The Ninth
25 Circuit has noted that “[t]he language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule
26 of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). As the
27
1 Supreme Court has explained, “[the in forma pauperis statute] is designed largely to discourage
2 the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying
3 litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490
4 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
5 Under Rule 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court must dismiss a complaint
6 if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint
7 include a “short and plain statement” showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief. “To survive a
8 motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
9 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal
10 quotation marks omitted); see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The
11 complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but the plaintiff must “provide the
12 grounds of his entitlement to relief,” which “requires more than labels and conclusions”; a mere
13 “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at
14 555 (cleaned up).
15 In determining whether to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the court is ordinarily
16 limited to the face of the complaint. Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980
17 (9th Cir. 2002). Factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and reasonable
18 inferences drawn from them must be construed in favor of the plaintiff. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins.
19 Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1996). The court cannot assume, however, that “the [plaintiff]
20 can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged.” Assoc. Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State
21 Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). “Nor is the court required to accept as true
22 allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable
23 inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).
24 Federal courts must construe pro se complaints liberally. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9
25 (1980); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). A pro se plaintiff need only
26 provide defendants with fair notice of his claims and the grounds upon which they rest. Hearns,
27 413 F.3d at 1043. He need not plead specific legal theories so long as sufficient factual averments
1 When dismissing a case for failure to state a claim, the Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that
2 a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made,
3 unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.”
4 Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130 (internal quotations omitted).
5
6 ANALYSIS
7 The court does not have federal jurisdiction over what is at best a state-law claim against Corte
8 Madera Towing. To the extent that a claim might exist for the police officer’s alleged impounding
9 of his car, the plaintiff does not allege facts that plausibly plead a claim.
10 First, there is no federal-question jurisdiction because the plaintiff’s claims are state-law
11 claims against a private actor, Corte Madera Towing. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Enwere v. Racy, No. 13-
12 cv-05541-JCS, 2014 WL 261458, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2014). There is no diversity
13 jurisdiction because all parties are citizens of California, and the amount apparently does not
14 exceed $75,000.6 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
15 Second, state actors (such as police officers) can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if there is an
16 underlying constitutional violation. The notice about the stored vehicle references California
17 Vehicle Code § 22852, which allows storage of a vehicle at the direction of police officers. The
18 plaintiff alleges a traffic stop, presumably because of a Vehicle Code violation. The plaintiff does
19 not identify the factual or legal basis for his claim, and so the court cannot tell what his complaint
20 is or whether he might have a federal claim against a state actor. Tannenbaum v. Cal. Dep’t of
21 Corrs. & Rehab., C 18-6770 WHA, 2019 WL 469975, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2019) (although
22 “specific facts are not necessary,” the pleading must “give the defendant fair notice of what the
23 claim is and the grounds upon which it rests”) (cleaned up).
24
25
26
27
1 CONCLUSION
2 The plaintiff may file an amended complaint by June 21, 2021 if he can cure the complaint’s
3 || deficiencies. In the amended complaint, he must identify each claim clearly and state the specific
4 || facts and actors that relate to each claim. He also must allege the basis for the court’s subject-
5 || matter jurisdiction. If the plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by June 21, 2021, the court
6 || will reassign the case to a district judge and recommend that the newly assigned judge dismiss the
7 || case. Alternatively, the plaintiff may also voluntarily dismiss this case by filing a one-page notice
8 of voluntary dismissal, which will operate as a dismissal without prejudice and allow him to
9 || pursue any state-law claims in state court.
10
11 IT IS SO ORDERED.
12 Dated: May 24, 2021
LAK
3 LAUREL BEELER
14 United States Magistrate Judge
15
16
17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28