dismissal for noncompliance with local rule
How later courts described this case
- dismissal for noncompliance with local rule
- dismissal for failure to comply with court order
- dismissal for failure to comply with an order 23 requiring amendment of complaint
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 CHRIS JONATHAN EPPERSON, Case No. 1:24-cv-01355-JLT-BAM
12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
13 v.
(Doc. 4)
14 CODIFICATION ORDER 497, et al.,
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
15 Defendants.
16
Plaintiff Chris Jonathan Epperson (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in
17
this civil action. (Doc. 1.) For the reasons that follow, the Court will recommend that this action
18
be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for lack of jurisdiction.
19
I. Background
20
Plaintiff initiated this action on November 6, 2024. (Doc. 1.) On November 8, 2024, the
21
Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and determined that the
22
complaint failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
23
and failed to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Court granted Plaintiff leave
24
to amend within thirty (30) days of service of the Court’s order. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff was expressly
25
warned that if he failed to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s order, then
26
the Court would recommend dismissal of this action. (Id. at 5.)
27
The deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint has passed and Plaintiff has not
28
1 complied with the Court’s order. Instead, Plaintiff filed a single-page document on November 18,
2 2024. (Doc. 5.) This document cannot be construed as an amended complaint because it lacks
3 basic information, including the name of any defendant or any factual allegations. It states only
4 the following:
5 No.24-1355 Mississippi Cross-Judgment 4855.
6 Sllybus Amicus Brief
7 Chris Jonathan Epperson V. Abbreviate Appendix
Footnotes Title 50 U.S.C. app. (a).
8
Chapter 51 Section 1111
9 They trading secrets espionage them her/she anticipated predicted dont even like
you messing with their powers.
10
50 U.S.C. app.(a)
11 Federal dont cross state 1yr imprisonment prison sentence either or fine.
12 Section 4
Federal dont cross state.
13
14 (Doc. 5.) The Court therefore will recommend dismissal of this action.
15 II. Failure to Allege Jurisdiction
16 A. Screening Requirement and Standard
17 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma
18 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to
19 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
20 granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
21 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
22 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
23 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
24 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
25 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
26 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as
27 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
28 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
1 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires
2 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable
3 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret
4 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully
5 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
6 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
7 B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations
8 Plaintiff drafted his complaint using the form provided by this Court. The caption of the
9 complaint names the “Codification Order 497 U.S. Supreme” as defendant. (Doc. 1.) However,
10 the complaint form lists the following defendants: (1) simon; (2) people; (3) george; and (4)
11 douglas. (Id. at 2.) He later names “Pavillion Verdome” as a defendant. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff
12 identifies the basis for jurisdiction as both federal question and diversity of citizenship. In the
13 section in which he is asked to indicate which of his federal constitutional or federal statutory
14 rights have been violated, he lists the following: “497 U.S. 479-90, 18 L. Ed. 88 (1907),” “70
15 U.S. 478, 479-90, 18 L. Ed. 88 (1951),” and 478 U.S. 479-90, 18 L. Ed. 88 (1962).” (Id. at 4.)
16 In the section in which he asked the basis for diversity of citizenship, Plaintiff identifies himself
17 and Defendant Pavillion Verdome, a citizen of Moscow, Russia. (Id.) Plaintiff specifies that the
18 amount in controversy is “One Hundred Bullion each fiscal year under the operations of the U.S.
19 Mint. The Great Seal of United States of America.” (Id. at 5.) The statement of claim section
20 states as follows: “Judiciary Order of 1758 obligated [illegible] public contract of the Tarrif Act
21 of 1798.” (Id. at 5.)
22 C. Discussion
23 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may adjudicate only those cases
24 authorized by the United States Constitution and Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
25 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “Federal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary
26 appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993)
27 (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 (1986)). Without
28 jurisdiction, the district court must dismiss the case. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v.
1 California State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Generally, there are
2 two bases for subject matter jurisdiction: (1) diversity jurisdiction; and (2) federal question
3 jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. As pled, the complaint fails to allege this Court’s subject
4 matter jurisdiction.
5 1. Diversity Jurisdiction
6 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil
7 actions “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,” and where the
8 matter is between “citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
9 Plaintiff’s complaint does not establish diversity jurisdiction. First, Plaintiff does not
10 allege that the parties’ citizenship is completely diverse. Plaintiff’s complaint provides little
11 information regarding the citizenship of the defendants identified as “simon,” “people,”
12 “george,” or “douglas.” However, Plaintiff provides the same Zip Code in California for
13 himself and these defendants: “93706.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) Thus, as pled, Plaintiff's amended
14 complaint does not establish diversity jurisdiction.
15 Even if the Court were to construe Plaintiff’s November 18, 2024 filing as an amended
16 complaint, he fails to establish diversity jurisdiction because he does not identify a defendant or
17 allege an amount in controversy. (See generally Doc. 5.)
18 2. Federal Question Jurisdiction
19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have jurisdiction over “all civil
20 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “A case ‘arises
21 under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the vindication
22 of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.’” Republican
23 Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd.
24 v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)). The presence or absence of
25 federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” Caterpillar, Inc. v.
26 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal jurisdiction
27 exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded
28 complaint.” Id.
1 Plaintiff’s complaint does not clearly allege any violation arising under the Constitution,
2 laws, or treaties of the United States. Plaintiff does not cite any particular federal statute or
3 constitutional provision that would be applicable to the allegations in his complaint. The
4 apparent case law citations in his complaint, without more, are not sufficient, nor is his reference
5 to a judiciary order from 1758. Thus, Plaintiff's complaint does not establish federal question
6 jurisdiction.
7 Even if the Court were to construe Plaintiff’s November 18, 2024 filing as an amended
8 complaint, he fails to establish federal question jurisdiction. As previously indicated, Plaintiff
9 does not identify a defendant in that filing, nor does he clearly allege any violation arising under
10 the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Plaintiff’s citations, without more, are
11 insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.
12 III. Failure to Obey a Court Order
13 A. Legal Standard
14 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with
15 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . .
16 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their
17 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where
18 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A
19 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action,
20 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran,
21 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v.
22 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order
23 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir.
24 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order).
25 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: (1)
26 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its
27 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of
28 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan,
1 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988).
2 B. Discussion
3 Here, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is overdue. The action cannot proceed without
4 Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the Court’s order. Moreover, the Court cannot hold
5 this case in abeyance awaiting compliance by Plaintiff. The Court additionally cannot
6 effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating his case. Thus, the Court finds that
7 both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
8 The third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, as a
9 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action.
10 Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs
11 against dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza,
12 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose
13 responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes
14 progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods.
15 Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
16 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the Court’s order will result in
17 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
18 1262; Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s November 8, 2024
19 screening order expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply would result in a
20 recommendation for dismissal of this action. (Doc. 4 at 5.) Plaintiff had adequate warning that
21 dismissal could result from his noncompliance.
22 Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court that
23 would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further
24 unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status in this action
25 indicates that monetary sanctions are of little use, and the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is
26 likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case.
27 III. Conclusion and Recommendation
28 For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed
1 based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s order and for lack of jurisdiction.
2 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
3 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
4 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may
5 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
6 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed
7 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page
8 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page
9 limit may not be considered. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
10 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual
11 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter
12 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15 Dated: December 17, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28