# (PS) Wu v. McGuire > District Court, E.D. California · April 4, 2025 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10839993 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** April 4, 2025 - **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/10839993 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10839993. Public record. Not legal advice.