“Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; 23 each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.”
How later courts described this case
- “Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; 23 each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.”
- liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DAVID WAYNE TALENT, Case No. 2:24-cv-01266-DJC-CSK
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
14 DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT
SERVICES, et al.,
15
Defendants. (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 10, 15)
16
17 Plaintiff David Wayne Talent is representing himself in this action and seeks leave
18 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 2.)
19 Plaintiff’s application in support of the IFP request makes the required financial showing.
20 Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP request.
21 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
22 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis
23 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to
24 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a
25 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith,
26 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an
27
1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R.
28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c).
1 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In
2 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual
3 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and
4 construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Neitzke, 490
5 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960
6 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).
7 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
8 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal).
9 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable
10 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d
11 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does
12 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007);
13 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
14 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough
15 facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A
16 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
17 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
18 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the
19 complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be
20 cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80
21 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).
22 II. THE COMPLAINT
23 Plaintiff’s Complaint uses the fillable form complaint and names the following
24 defendants: “Department of Homeland Security”, “Sacramento Department of Child
25 Support”, “[t]he State Department”, and “Department Health and Human Services”.
26 Compl. at 2 (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff asserts federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 3. However,
27 when asked to list the basis for federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff states: “There is no
28 federal government – Can not report to or speak to.” Id. The brief factual allegations are
1 vague and incoherent. For his short and plain statement of his claim(s), Plaintiff states,
2 the following:
3 Federal government gone, State government limited, low
level communication only. County access only, blocked by
4 police and Sherriff’s department. Employment blocked, bank
accounts blocked, internet blocked, all communications
5 blocked, phones communication through some sort of central
hub blocking communications, Child Support attacking
6 income, cell completely attacked and or threatened, State
ID’s being taken, mail being filtered and blocked, verbal
7 attack being implemented, proof provided in all case files.
8 Id. at 4. In addition, Plaintiff alleges he was denied the right to file paperwork in federal
9 court; has been unable to contact the “FBI[,] Homeland[,] NSA[,] and even Washington
10 DC”; has been “under attack”; the “superior court is blocked by low level police and
11 sheriff employer’s”’; currently hold[s] $100,000,000 in default judgments from state and
12 federal agencies”; filed a “human rights claim with the UN”; and the “current govt is trying
13 to erase my existence for possible monetary value.” Id. at 7-9. Plaintiff also attaches
14 140-pages of miscellaneous and convoluted documents. Id. at 6, 10-140. For example,
15 Plaintiff includes filings from state court relating to kidnapping allegations and what
16 appears to be criminal charges (ECF No. 1 at 6, 21-23); filings relating to requests for
17 default in Sacramento County and the United States District Court for the Eastern District
18 of Northern Carolina (ECF No. 1 at 16-20, 57-59, 61-72); filings from Onslow County
19 Superior Court in North Carolina in what appears to be a child support action (ECF No. 1
20 at 31-33, 54). For relief, Plaintiff appears to allege he is owed “$75,000,000 in Federal
21 and State Default judgment.” Id.
22 III. DISCUSSION
23 A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
24 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may hear only those cases
25 authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
26 Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry, and “[f]ederal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction,
27 ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516,
28 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546
1 (1986)); see Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858
2 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Without jurisdiction, the district court cannot decide the
3 merits of a case or order any relief and must dismiss the case. See Morongo, 858 F.2d
4 at 1380. A federal court’s jurisdiction may be established in one of two ways: actions
5 arising under federal law or those between citizens of different states in which the
6 alleged damages exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. “Subject-matter jurisdiction
7 can never be waived or forfeited,” and “courts are obligated to consider sua sponte”
8 subject matter jurisdiction even when not raised by the parties. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565
9 U.S. 134, 141 (2012).
10 The Complaint fails to establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See
11 Compl. The Complaint states no basis for federal court jurisdiction, and none is
12 apparent. No federal cause of action is asserted, and no federal claims are suggested by
13 the facts, to the extent the facts are discernible. Therefore, the Court lacks subject
14 matter jurisdiction based on federal question.
15 In addition, the Complaint fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. Although Plaintiff
16 states the amount in controversy is $75 million, Plaintiff fails to establish that there is
17 complete diversity of citizenship. At least one defendant, like Plaintiff, is a citizen of
18 California. See Compl. at 2 (naming Defendant Sacramento Department of Child
19 Support). The Court notes that although Plaintiff stated in the Complaint he is a citizen of
20 North Carolina (Compl. at 1), Plaintiff’s recent address change indicates he now resides
21 in Auburn, California. See ECF No. 16; see Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d
22 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship;
23 each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.”).
24 Because there is no diversity of citizenship established here, the Court finds that it also
25 lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity jurisdiction.
26 B. Failure to Comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
27 Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim as
28 required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In order to give fair notice of the claims
1 and the grounds on which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of
2 particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v.
3 Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court is unable to discern what causes
4 of action Plaintiff intends to bring. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading
5 policy, even a pro se litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a
6 claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649
7 (9th Cir. 1984).
8 The Complaint therefore fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and
9 is subject to dismissal. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996)
10 (affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot determine from the complaint who is
11 being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”).
12 C. Leave to Amend
13 In considering whether leave to amend should be granted, the Court finds that the
14 Complaint consists entirely of allegations with no basis in law and no plausible
15 supporting facts. See generally Compl. The Complaint does not contain facts supporting
16 any cognizable legal claim against any defendant. The contents of the Complaint are
17 sufficiently unintelligible that leave to amend in this case would not be fruitful. In light of
18 the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the Complaint’s deficiencies, granting
19 leave to amend would be futile. The Complaint should therefore be dismissed without
20 leave to amend. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,
21 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995).
22 IV. MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
23 Plaintiff has also filed two motions for an extension of time to serve the summons
24 and Complaint. (ECF Nos. 10, 15.) These motions are denied as moot because the
25 Complaint must be screened prior to service of the Complaint.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
1] V. CONCLUSION
2 In accordance with the above, IT |S ORDERED that:
3 1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED;
4 and
5 2. Plaintiff's requests for extension of time (ECF Nos. 10, 15) are DENIED.
6 In addition, IT |S RECOMMENDED that the Complaint be dismissed without leave
7 || to amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and where
8 || amendment would be futile.
9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
10 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
11 | 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file
12 | written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should
13 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any
14 | reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14
15 | days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time
16 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,
17 | 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
18
19 | Dated: December 3, 2024 CO i S \U
20 CHI SOO KIM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23 || 4, talen1266.24
24
25
26
27
28