# Gaines v. State of California

> District Court, N.D. California · September 5, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10639373

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** September 5, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10639373

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that 15 courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject matter jurisdiction”
- affirming dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, 5 replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”
- noting that 15 courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject matter jurisdiction”

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 RONISHA SHARDE GAINES, Case No. 24-cv-01280-TSH

8 Plaintiff,
SECOND SCREENING ORDER
9 v.
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)

10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

11 Defendant.

12

13
14
I. INTRODUCTION
15
On March 15, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff Ronisha Sharde Gaines’s application to
16
proceed in forma pauperis and screened the complaint, finding it deficient under 28 U.S.C.
17
§ 1915(e). ECF No. 5. Plaintiff has now filed a First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 11. A
18
second amended complaint has also been filed. Sec. Amended Compl., ECF 14. Since the first
19
amended complaint has already been replaced, the Court will address the second amended
20
complaint. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds the second amended complaint is still
21
deficient. No later than October 3, 2024, Plaintiff must file a third amended complaint curing the
22
deficiencies identified in this screening order. If Plaintiff fails to cure these deficiencies, the case
23
will be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation for dismissal.
24
II. BACKGROUND
25
Plaintiff was instructed in the first screening order to remedy the lack of federal subject
26
matter jurisdiction, the failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the
27
immunity of some defendants, and the frivolousness of many of the allegations in the complaint.
1 The Court informed the Plaintiff that individuals cannot bring claims under criminal statutes and
2 that the State of California has immunity. The Plaintiff was also instructed to remedy the claims
3 to ensure they are attached to a defendant. In the first amended complaint, the Plaintiff brings this
4 case against more than 20 defendants. Amended Compl., ECF No. 11 at 6-9. Her second
5 amended complaint is almost identical to the first. Sec. Amended Compl., ECF No. 14, at 1-4.
6 The only change is the removal of some handwritten notes on the fifth and seventh pages of the
7 complaint. Id. at 5 and 7; see also Amended Compl. at 5 and 7. While unclear from the
8 pleadings, the Plaintiff appears to allege that the Attorney General and Contra Costa County have
9 ignored her after she filed a consumer complaint because her identity was stolen. Plaintiff
10 includes a variety of allegations, such as tax fraud, mail fraud, discrimination, harassment, identity
11 theft, and falsified medical records. Plaintiff now seeks $500,000 in personal injury damages for
12 herself and her son.
13 III. SUA SPONTE SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
14 A. Legal Standard
15 A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process if it “(i) is
16 frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
17 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(i)-
18 (iii). “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which
19 relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
20 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
21 2012) (citation omitted). As such, the complaint must allege facts that plausibly establish each
22 defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). “A claim has
23 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
24 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
25 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In making this determination, the Court must “take as true all
26 allegations of material fact stated in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to
27 the plaintiff.” Watison, 668 F.3d at 1112 (citation omitted). The Court must also “construe a pro
1 up). However, the Court “may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially
2 pled.” Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992).
3 A complaint must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires the
4 complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
5 to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The failure to comply with Rule 8 is a basis for dismissal that is
6 not dependent on whether the complaint is without merit. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179
7 (9th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, even claims which are not on their face subject to dismissal under
8 Rule 12(b)(6) may still be dismissed for violating Rule 8(a). Id.
9 B. Application
10 Jurisdiction
11 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
12 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As such, they “have an independent obligation to ensure that they
13 do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S.
14 428, 434 (2011); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that
15 courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject matter jurisdiction”).
16 Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil cases and the burden of
17 establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.
18 There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction
19 under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A district court has
20 federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
21 the United States.” Id. at § 1331. A cause of action “arises under federal law only when the
22 plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.” Hansen v. Blue Cross of Cal., 891
23 F.2d 1384, 1386 (9th Cir. 1989). A district court has diversity jurisdiction “where the matter in
24 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between citizens of different states, or
25 citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
26 Here, there is no diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not made clear which state she resides
27 in. Her complaint lists defendants that reside in the state of California but does not clarify which
1 Cir. 1974). Since it is unclear which state the Plaintiff is a resident of, the Court cannot find
2 diversity jurisdiction.
3 However, Plaintiff alleges federal question jurisdiction under the federal RICO statute, 18
4 U.S.C. 1961. There is a federal cause of action to enforce RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1964, and that is
5 Plaintiff’s first claim for relief, so there is federal jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff brings an
6 additional claim under a criminal statute for obstruction, 18 U.S.C. 73,1 to assert federal question
7 jurisdiction. As discussed in the first screening order, private individuals do not have standing to
8 assert claims for relief through criminal statutes. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619
9 (1973). Therefore, an individual cannot file “criminal charges in the United States District Court.
10 Rather, criminal proceedings in federal court are initiated by the government, usually through the
11 United States Attorney’s Office.” Candy-Anh-Thu: Tran v. Daniel, 2017 WL 6513414, at *2
12 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2017) (citing Harbor v. Kim, 2017 WL 443164, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31,
13 2017)). Since the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring criminal charges, claims brought under the
14 criminal statute must be dismissed without leave to amend. See Candy-Anh-Thu: Tran, 2017 WL
15 6513414, at *2 (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) requires that complaints alleging
16 criminal charges must be dismissed without leave to amend). If the Plaintiff believes any
17 defendants were involved in criminal conduct, she must contact federal law enforcement or the
18 United States Attorney’s Office and present the facts supporting that belief to them.
19 Accordingly, there is federal subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s second amended
20 complaint.
21 18 U.S.C. §1961 (RICO)
22 On the merits, Plaintiff’s civil RICO claim is deficient. For the Plaintiff to allege a civil
23 RICO claim, the elements of 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) must be satisfied: ‘‘(1) conduct (2) of an
24 enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity (known as ‘predicate acts’) (5) causing
25 injury to the plaintiff’s business or property.’” Abcarian v. Levine, 972 F.3d 1019, 1028 (9th Cir.
26 2020) (quoting Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F.3d 506, 510 (9th Cir. 1996)). The RICO statute prohibits
27
1 four kinds of activities: “(1) investing in, (2) acquiring, or (3) conducting or participating in an
2 enterprise with income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of an unlawful
3 debt, or (4) conspiring to commit any of the first three types of activity.” Ninth Circuit Manual of
4 Model Civil Jury Instructions § 8 (2019); see also 18 U.S.C. §1962(a)-(d).
5 Plaintiff does not adequately allege the existence of an enterprise. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4)
6 defines an enterprise as “any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity,
7 and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.” An enterprise
8 is proven by an “ongoing organization, formal or informal, and by evidence that the various
9 associates function as a continuing unit.” United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 (1981).
10 The Plaintiff must provide factual allegations that make it plausible there was an enterprise.
11 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-57. These facts cannot be conclusory. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680.
12 While the Plaintiff lists multiple bad acts by multiple Defendants, the complaint fails to
13 provide allegations that the Defendants are functioning as a continuous unit. Plaintiff lists Kaiser
14 Permanente, Fed-Ex, WCCUSD, Contra Costa County DA, and others as Defendants; however, no
15 facts are provided that link the alleged conduct together under RICO. Sec. Amended Compl. at 5.
16 Further, the conduct alleged by each Defendant does not appear to be related to one another. The
17 falsified medical documents, discrimination, ignored Google complaint, and mail theft do not have
18 any facts provided that make it plausible the Defendants are functioning as a continuous unit.
19 These claims lack sufficient facts to demonstrate any organized conduct. Additionally, when the
20 underlying wrongful conduct is listed, it is either conclusory or lacks sufficient facts to take the
21 claim from possible to plausible. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-57; see also Sec. Amended Compl. at
22 4-6. For example, the claim against Kaiser Permanente simply lists “Falsified Medical Records,”
23 the claim against Sylvester Greenwood states “Personal Injury,” and the claim against Meta
24 simply says “Discrimination-Personal Injury.” Sec. Amended Compl. at 5. The facts alleged are
25 insufficient to demonstrate a plausible enterprise. Therefore, the second element of a RICO claim
26 is not satisfied.
27 For the third element, the Plaintiff must establish a pattern of racketeering activity. Pattern
1 18 U.S.C. §1961(5). Two predicate acts are necessary for finding a violation, but alone may be
2 insufficient. See H.J., Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 238 (1989) (“‘proof of two acts of
3 racketeering activity, without more, does not establish a pattern.’”) (quoting 116 Cong. Rec.
4 18940 (1970)). A pattern is established by a combination of continuity plus relationship. Id. at
5 239 (quoting 116 Cong. Rec., at 18940); see also Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529, 1535
6 (9th Cir. 1992). For the conduct to be related, it must “embrac[e] criminal acts that have the same
7 or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are
8 interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events.” H.J., Inc., 492 U.S. at
9 240. In the amended complaint, the claims, varying from ignored emails to tax fraud, are not
10 related to one another. Identity theft, unread emails, tax fraud, changed emergency contacts, and
11 mail fraud are not related predicate acts that would indicate conduct that embraces criminal acts
12 with a similar purpose. Since the acts are unrelated, the third element is not satisfied.
13 Accordingly, because the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the second and third elements of
14 Civil RICO, her claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 fails on the merits.
15 Immunity
16 It is likely that Plaintiff’s RICO claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment against some
17 of the Defendants. Plaintiff has named the State of California and the Franchise Tax Board as
18 Defendants. Sec. Amended Compl. at 1-2. States are given sovereign immunity under the
19 Eleventh Amendment that, when invoked, bars adjudication of a dispute in federal court. Agua
20 Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Hardin, 223 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2000); Durning v.
21 Citibank, N.A., 950 F.2d 1419, 1422-23 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal courts are barred from deciding
22 virtually any case where a state is a defendant by the Eleventh Amendment). The Eleventh
23 Amendment protects States from suits brought by citizens in federal court. Douglas v. Cal. Dep’t
24 of Youth Auth., 271 F.3d 812, 817 (9th Cir. 2001), amended by 271 F.3d 910. Therefore, Plaintiff
25 is barred “by the Eleventh Amendment from suing the State of California in federal court.” Ass’n
26 des Eleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Quebec v. Harris, 729 F.3d 937, 943 (9th Cir. 2013).
27 Rule 8
1 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the complaint set forth a “short and plain
2 statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(d)(1) states that each of
3 the Plaintiff’s allegations must be “simple, concise, and direct.” See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d
4 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative, prolix,
5 replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”). Complaints that do not comply with Rule 8 are
6 subject to dismissal regardless of whether the complaint is meritless. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179.
7 To comply with Rule 8, a complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations, but it is
8 “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief.” Twombly, 550 U.S.
9 at 555 (internal citations and quotations omitted). A plaintiff must do more than assert “labels and
10 conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id.
11 Rather, the plaintiff must provide sufficient factual allegations “to state a claim to relief that is
12 plausible on its face.” Id. at 570; see also Coleman v. Beard, 2015 WL 395662, at *4 (N.D. Cal.
13 Jan. 29, 2015) (“While the federal rules require brevity in pleading, a complaint nevertheless must
14 be sufficient to give the defendants ‘fair notice’ of the claim and the ‘grounds upon which it
15 rests.’”) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)).
16 Here, Plaintiff makes many allegations that have no facts attached, and many of the
17 allegations are conclusory. Sec. Amended Compl. at 3-6. This is true for the discrimination,
18 identity theft, tax fraud, mail fraud, and mail theft allegations, where Plaintiff alleges the conduct
19 occurred without factual support. Plaintiff claims that her work was stolen by Contra Costa
20 College and provides “Russia Correlation” to support the claim, a conclusory statement that fails
21 to provide facts that makes the claim plausible. Sec. Amended Compl. at 4. Additionally, the
22 claims against Meta and WCCUSD are listed simply as “Discrimination,” “Personal Injury,” and
23 “Discrimination and harassment – Personal and Financial Injury,” with no facts or any
24 clarification of what the discriminatory conduct or injury was that Plaintiff suffered. Id. at 5.
25 Plaintiff’s providing no facts or information beyond “Discrimination” or “Discrimination and
26 harassment” is conclusory and insufficient to make the claims against WCCUSD and Meta
27 plausible. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Altogether, the Plaintiff’s second amended complaint has
1 Thus, to comply with Rule 8’s pleading requirement, Plaintiff must amend the complaint to allege:
2 (1) the specific laws or rights that you think the defendant(s) violated; (2) for each law or right,
3 state the specific factual allegations that connect each defendant with the alleged wrongdoing,
4 including dates, the names of people involved, and what those people did to you; and (3) how you
5 were harmed.
6 Rule 9
7 When alleging a claim regarding fraud, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) states that “a
8 party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Fraud is
9 properly plead by “specifically alleging fraud, or by alleging facts that necessarily constitute fraud
10 (even if the word ‘fraud’ is not used).” Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1105 (9th
11 Cir. 2003). To comply with Rule 9(b), the fraud allegations must be “‘specific enough to give
12 defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so
13 that they can defend against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong.’”
14 Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Neubronner v. Milken, 6
15 F.3d 666, 672 (9th Cir.1993)). This serves to give defendants specific notice and “‘deter the filing
16 of complaints as a pretext for discovery of unknown wrongs, to protect [defendants] from the harm
17 that comes from being subject to fraud charges, and to prohibit plaintiffs from unilaterally
18 imposing upon the court’” and society the social and economic costs absent a factual basis. Bly-
19 Magee, 236 F.3d at 1018 (quoting In re Stac Elec. Sec. Litig., 89 F.3d 1399, 1405 (9th Cir. 1996)).
20 In the second amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges both tax fraud and mail fraud. The
21 claim of tax fraud is made with no clear Defendant and no facts to establish conduct that would
22 support a fraud claim. Sec. Amended Compl. at 3. The mail fraud against USPS states only that
23 the mail was rerouted and that important notices have been missed. Id. at 6. These two claims are
24 vague and only allege fraud with no further explanation. It is not clear what particular misconduct
25 makes these claims fraud or the Defendants the conduct is attached to. Bly-Magee, 236 F.3d 1014,
26 1019. Thus, the facts that the Plaintiff has provided regarding these two fraud claims are
27 insufficient to particularly describe the circumstances that constitute fraud.
Rule 20
1
The Plaintiff has listed over 20 Defendants in the second amended complaint. These
2
parties, however, are not properly joined under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. Through
3
Rule 20(a)(2), Defendants can be joined when: (A) the right to relief is asserted against them
4
“jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction,
5
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common
6
to all defendants will arise in the action.” The same transaction requirement of the first prong
7
refers to the “similarity in the factual background of the claim.” Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d
8
1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997). There must be a “systematic pattern of events” that the claims arise
9
from for them to “arise from the same transaction or occurrence.” Id. Here, the Plaintiff alleges
10
different legal claims for multiple Defendants, many of which are unrelated to each other. Sec.
11
Amended Compl. at 5-6. There are a variety of claims made against the Defendants, ranging from
12
falsified medical records to discrimination and tax fraud, that appear to arise out of separate
13
conduct. Id. at 5. Plaintiff fails to allege a series of transactions or common questions of law or
14
fact that tie the Defendants together. Even though Plaintiff brings all claims under 18 U.S.C.
15
1961, “the mere fact that all Plaintiff[’s] claims arise under the same general law does not
16
necessarily establish a common question of law or fact.” Coughlin, 130 F.3d at 1351. The
17
Defendants listed in the complaint are not alleged to be engaging in organized acts against
18
Plaintiff under 18 U.S.C. 1961. Sec. Amended Compl. at 5. While the conduct is alleged under
19
the same law, the conduct of Defendants appears to be separate from one another. Id. The
20
complaint fails to provide any facts that demonstrate the Defendants were engaged in a systematic
21
pattern of events that link them together. Thus, the second amended complaint fails to properly
22
join the Defendants under Rule 20.
23
IV. CONCLUSION
24
For the reasons above, the Court finds Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim
25
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). However, given the pro se status of Plaintiff, and because it is
26
not clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment, the Court shall
27
grant another opportunity to amend. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a third
1 amended complaint by October 3, 2024.
2 A. REQUIREMENTS FOR AMENDED COMPLAINT
3 Because an amended complaint replaces the previous complaint, it may not incorporate
4 claims or allegations in the original complaint by reference. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
5 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Instead, any amendment must include all of the facts and claims to be
6 presented and all of the defendants that are to be sued. In addition, any amended complaint must
7 include the following sections:

8 Caption Page
On the first page, list the names of the defendant(s), the case number
9 used in this order (24-cv-01280-TSH), the title (“THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT”), and write “Demand for Jury Trial” if you want your
10 case to be heard by a jury.

11 Form of Pleadings
The factual allegations and claims must be written in numbered
12 paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of
circumstances.
13
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
14 The first numbered paragraph in your complaint (labeled
“Jurisdiction”) should explain why this Court has the power to decide
15 this kind of case. A federal court can hear a case based on a federal
question jurisdiction (a violation of federal law under 28 U.S.C. §
16 1331) or diversity jurisdiction (when all plaintiffs and all defendants
are citizens of different states disputing more than $75,000) under 28
17 U.S.C. § 1332.

18 Parties
In separate paragraphs for each party, identify the plaintiff(s) and
19 defendant(s) in the case.

20 Statement of Facts
Explain the important facts in your case in numbered paragraphs,
21 describing how the defendant(s) violated the law and how you have
been injured.
22
Claims
23 Include a separate heading for each legal claim (Claim 1, Claim 2,
etc.), identifying the specific law that you think the defendant(s)
24 violated and explaining in numbered paragraphs what each defendant
did to violate each law.
25
26 B. RESOURCES
27 Plaintiff is again advised of the resources offered at the Legal Help Center, a free service
1 request an appointment by emailing fedpro@sfbar.org or calling 415-782-8982. At the Legal
2 Help Center, you will be able to speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal
3 help but not representation. More information is available at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-
4 se-litigants/.
5 Plaintiff may also wish to obtain a copy of this District’s Handbook for Litigants Without a
6 Lawyer, which provides instructions on how to proceed at every stage of your case. The
7 handbook is available in person at the Clerk’s Office and online at:
8 https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/.
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11 Dated:
12
THOMAS S. HIXSON
13 United States Magistrate Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10639373. Public record. Not legal advice.