The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 REBECCA WU, Case No. 2:24-cv-2827-TLN-JDP (PS)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 BILL MCGUIRE, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel, brings this action against defendants Bill McGuire
18 and Steven Martinez, employees of Twin Rivers Unified School District, alleging that they
19 violated her rights by terminating her teaching job.1 Her complaint cannot proceed as articulated.
20 I will dismiss the complaint and give plaintiff a chance to amend her complaint before
21 recommending dismissal of the case. I will also grant her application to proceed in forma
22 pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2).
23
24
25
1 Plaintiff has filed complaints raising similar allegations in Wu v. Kerenstenzis, No. 2:24-
26
cv-3353-DJC-JDP (including claims against defendant Martinez) and Wu v. Twin Rivers United
27 Educators, No. 2:24-cv-2707-DAD-AC. The court in both cases found the complaints barred by
the Rooker-Feldman and Younger doctrines. This complaint raises similar abstention concerns
28 and will be dismissed for the same reasons.
1 Screening and Pleading Requirements
2 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed
3 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and
4 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon
5 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
6 relief. Id.
7 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief,
8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
9 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not
10 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
11 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
12 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not
13 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024,
14 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that
15 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264
16 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted).
17 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404
18 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it
19 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
20 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017).
21 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements
22 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251,
23 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).
24 Analysis
25 The complaint, while somewhat difficult to follow given its length and lack of
26 organization, centers around plaintiff’s prior employment as a teacher in the Twin Rivers Unified
27
28
1 School District.2 ECF No. 1 at 6-7. Plaintiff appears to have brought several lawsuits associated
2 with her whistleblowing, improper employment classification, and termination. See id. generally.
3 Many of those lawsuits, as identified in the complaint, are either completed with final judgments
4 or are still being litigated. For example, the complaint has labeled these lawsuits as “not final:”
5 Rebecca Wu v. Carreon, No. C093905 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 29,
2024)
6
Rebecca Wu v. Cal. State Teachers’ Ret. Sys., No. C095632 (Cal.
7 Ct. App. Sep. 28, 2023)
8 Rebecca Wu vs Twin Rivers Unified School District No. SA-CE-
2888E (Public Employment Relations Board)
9
Rebecca Wu vs Twin Rivers Unified School District No. SA-CE-
10 2867E (Public Employment Relations Board)
11 Id. at 3. This ongoing litigation, both finalized and ongoing, presents obstacles to the current
12 litigation. The ongoing cases implicate the abstention doctrine in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,
13 43-54 (1971), which commands federal courts to refrain from interfering in parallel state court
14 proceedings in most circumstances. The finalized cases potentially implicate the Rooker-
15 Feldman doctrine, which “prohibits a federal district court from exercising subject matter
16 jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.” Kougasian v.
17 TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). As noted above, plaintiff has filed a similar
18 case in this district, in which the courts made similar determinations at the screening stage. See
19 Wu v. Twin Rivers United Educators, No. 2:24-cv-2707-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2024) at
20 ECF No. 3; Wu v. Kerestenzis, No. 2:24-cv-3353-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2025) at ECF No.
21 3.
22 Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed for the reasons stated above. I will allow plaintiff
23 a chance to amend her complaint before recommending that this action be dismissed. Plaintiff
24 should take care to add specific factual allegations against each defendant and to better organize
25 her complaint. She must also explain why her claims are not barred by the doctrines discussed
26
2 The complaint enumerates causes of actions against California Teachers Association and
27 Twin Rivers Unified Educators. Id. at 22, 24. However, neither of those entities are named
defendants. Should plaintiff amend her complaint, she should ensure that the proper defendants
28 are named.
1 | above. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede
2 | thecurrent one. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).
3 | This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to
4 | the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the
5 | current one no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in the
6 | original, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in
7 | sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer
8 | to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will
9 | recommend that this action be dismissed.
10 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
11 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.
12 2. Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend.
13 3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended
14 | complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.
15 4. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may
16 result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed
17 || with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
18 5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order.
19
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21 ( q Sty -
Dated: _ April 4, 2025 q———
22 JEREMY D. PETERSON
54 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28