# (PS) Rogers v. Eastern Indians

> District Court, E.D. California · December 26, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10771460

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** December 26, 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/10771460

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 NICOLE JEAN ROGERS, Case No. 2:24-cv-01761-DAD-CSK
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
14 EASTERN INDIANS,

15 Defendant.
(ECF Nos. 1, 2)
16
17 Plaintiff Nicole Jean Rogers is representing herself 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 is a 9-page letter titled “Twelve Step Testimony (DA/BDA)
24 side notes c/o AA and or NA.” Compl. at 1 (ECF No. 1). The Complaint names
25 Defendant “Eastern Indians” and appears to allege Defendant is “invading our business
26 & homes[ ] @ AM/PM – Fruitridge Rd.” Id. The Complaint begins with the following:
27 Happy birthday if you celebrate a birthday today and
welcome if you are new. I have a sponsor and my sponsor
28 has a sponsor. I am in three programs AA, OA, and DA. Just
1 like I have a problem with substance abuse and overeating. I
also have a problem with spending and earning problems.
2
3 Id. at 1. The Complaint then proceeds to detail Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family’s
4 background and history. See generally Compl. Plaintiff also states her “issues around
5 [her] concept with money” and “eight incidents I had very specifically done wrong.”
6 Compl. at 2-3. The Complaint concludes with the following:
7 As it relates to step eleven because I have been through so
much I have come to rely upon prayer & meditation as being
8 the center point of my being in and with everything I do. I
want to point out that it says "sought" so the act of seeking
9 out meaning even if you think you never reach the destination
of talking to a higher power it is trusting the process and that
10 next right action of searching within outside of ourselves. And
another key component is asking for knowledge for his will for
11 us and the power to carry it out. Because I don't always get
someone talking to me or something necessarily happening
12 to or for me when I use prayer and meditation but it is the
entire thought process clears itself up and I know for me I find
13 that I come to think of it, so to speak, all the time when in
prayer and meditation it is where I get my answers. Having
14 said all of this prayer has changed the entire trajectory of my
life. I highly recommend it! It works. It really does.
15
16 Compl. at 8-9. The Complaint also attaches a civil cover sheet that provides as a brief
17 description for Plaintiff’s cause of action as “Tantrum didn’t get what he wanted.
18 Retaliated.” Compl. at 10. For relief, Plaintiff demands $11 million. Id.
19 III. DISCUSSION
20 A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
21 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may hear only those cases
22 authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
23 Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry, and “[f]ederal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction,
24 ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516,
25 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546
26 (1986)); see Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858
27 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Without jurisdiction, the district court cannot decide the
28 merits of a case or order any relief and must dismiss the case. See Morongo, 858 F.2d
1 at 1380. A federal court’s jurisdiction may be established in one of two ways: actions
2 arising under federal law or those between citizens of different states in which the
3 alleged damages exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. “Subject-matter jurisdiction
4 can never be waived or forfeited,” and “courts are obligated to consider sua sponte”
5 subject matter jurisdiction even when not raised by the parties. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565
6 U.S. 134, 141 (2012).
7 The Complaint fails to establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See
8 Compl. The Complaint states no basis for federal court jurisdiction, and none is
9 apparent. No federal cause of action is asserted, and no federal claims are suggested by
10 the facts, to the extent the facts are discernible. Therefore, the Court lacks subject
11 matter jurisdiction based on federal question.
12 In addition, the Complaint fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. Although Plaintiff
13 states the amount in controversy is $11 million, Plaintiff fails to establish that there is
14 complete diversity of citizenship. On the face of the Complaint, all parties appear to be
15 citizens of California. Compl. at 1. Additionally, Plaintiff checks off in the civil cover sheet
16 that both Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of California. Compl. at 10; see Morris v.
17 Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Section 1332 requires
18 complete diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different
19 state than each of the defendants.”). Because there is no diversity of citizenship
20 established here, the Court finds that it also lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on
21 diversity jurisdiction.
22 B. Failure to Comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
23 Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim as
24 required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In order to give fair notice of the claims
25 and the grounds on which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of
26 particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v.
27 Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court is unable to discern what causes
28 of action Plaintiff intends to bring. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading
1 policy, even a pro se litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a
2 claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649
3 (9th Cir. 1984).
4 The Complaint therefore fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and
5 is subject to dismissal. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996)
6 (affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot determine from the complaint who is
7 being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”).
8 C. Leave to Amend
9 In considering whether leave to amend should be granted, the Court finds that the
10 Complaint consists entirely of allegations with no basis in law and no plausible
11 supporting facts. See generally Compl. The Complaint does not contain facts supporting
12 any cognizable legal claim against Defendant. The contents of the Complaint are
13 sufficiently unintelligible that leave to amend in this case would not be fruitful. In light of
14 the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the Complaint’s deficiencies, granting
15 leave to amend would be futile. The Complaint should therefore be dismissed without
16 leave to amend. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,
17 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995).
18 IV. CONCLUSION
19 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to proceed
20 in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.
21 In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Complaint be dismissed without leave
22 to amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and where
23 amendment would be futile.
24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
25 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
26 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file
27 written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should
28 be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any
1 || reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14
2 | days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time
3 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,
4 | 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
5
6 | Dated: December 23, 2024 C iy S \U
CHI SOO KIM
8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10 || 4, roge1761.24
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10771460. Public record. Not legal advice.