Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 J. JESUS RAMOS RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 2:25-cv-2143-DC-CSK

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

14 MARIA XOCHITL MEJIA TORRES, et

al.,

15 (ECF Nos. 1,2)

Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff J. Jesus Ramos Rodriguez is representing himself in this action and

18 seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF

19 No. 2.) For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s IFP application be

20 denied, and the Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.

21 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that the court may authorize the commencement,

23 prosecution or defense of any suit without prepayment of fees or security “by a person

24 who submits an affidavit stating the person is “unable to pay such fees or give security

25 therefor.” This affidavit is to include, among other things, a statement of all assets the

26 person possesses. Id. The IFP statute does not itself define what constitutes insufficient

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 assets. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). In Escobedo,

2 the Ninth Circuit stated that an affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient

3 where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay court costs and still afford the necessities of

4 life. Id. “One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis

5 statute.” Id. Nonetheless, a party seeking IFP status must allege poverty “with some

6 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. According to the United States Department

7 of Health and Human Services, the current poverty guideline for a household of one (not

8 residing in Alaska or Hawaii) is $15,060.00. See U.S. Dpt. Health & Human Service

9 (available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines).

10 Here, Plaintiff has made the required showing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See

11 ECF No. 2. However, the Court will recommend Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied

12 because the action is facially frivolous or without merit because it fails to state a claim

13 and lacks subject matter jurisdiction. “‘A district court may deny leave to proceed in

14 forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that

15 the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115

16 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir.

17 1987)); see also McGee v. Dep’t of Child Support Servs., 584 Fed. App’x. 638 (9th Cir.

18 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee's request to

19 proceed IFP because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that McGee's

20 action is frivolous or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965)

21 (“It is the duty of the District Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in

22 forma pauperis to determine whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it

23 appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is bound to deny a motion

24 seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). Because it appears from the face of

25 Plaintiff’s Complaint that this action is frivolous or is without merit as discussed in more

26 detail below, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s IFP motion be denied.

27 / / /

28 / / /

1 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

2 Even if the Court were to grant Plaintiff’s IFP application, Plaintiff’s Complaint

3 warrants dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)’s required pre-answer screening.

4 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis

5 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to

6 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a

7 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith,

8 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an

9 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In

10 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual

11 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and

12 construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id. at 326-27;

13 Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir.

14 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).

15 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627

16 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post-Iqbal).

17 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable

18 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d

19 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does

20 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007);

21 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

22 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough

23 facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A

24 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court

25 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

26 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the

27 complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be

28 cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80

1 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).

2 III. THE COMPLAINT

3 Plaintiff brings this action against the following eighteen (18) defendants: Maria

4 Xochitl Mejia Torres, Rebecca Ramirez Guzman, Marisol Milian, Letcia Milian Flores,

5 Alejandro Plascensia Ramos, Pavement Paving Coatings d/b/a Pavement Recycling

6 Sys., Esperanza Leticia Garnica, Lorena Simmons, Hazael Arturo Ayala Rodriguez, Zick

7 Ayala Arellano, Leticia Arellano Gutierrez, Jose Manuel Rodriguez Milian, Josafat

8 Herrera Mejia, Cecilia Vega, Manuel Coronado Soto, Jesica Milian Garza, Rosa Aleman

9 Razo, and Cindy Alejandra Luna Rios. Compl. at 2-10 (ECF No. 1). The entirety of the

10 allegations in the Complaint are as follows:

11 Alejandra (sister) had agreement with this people to

kidnap[p]ing me due to a will my parents give me. She

12 comment to a friend that I need help d[ue] to my divorce and

family collapse. She also stole my identity along with [illegible

13 phrase] to ask for money or kill me.

14 Compl. at 12. For relief, Plaintiff requests compensation for “lost time, psychological

15 abuse, los[s] of all propert[ie]s actual value and punishment according [to] law.” Id. at 13.

16 IV. DISCUSSION

17 A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

18 The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Federal courts are

19 courts of limited jurisdiction and may hear only those cases authorized by federal law.

20 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Jurisdiction is a threshold

21 inquiry, and “[f]ederal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary

22 appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir.

23 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 (1986)); see

24 Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380

25 (9th Cir. 1988). Without jurisdiction, the district court cannot decide the merits of a case

26 or order any relief and must dismiss the case. See Morongo, 858 F.2d at 1380. A federal

27 court’s jurisdiction may be established in one of two ways: actions arising under federal

28 law or those between citizens of different states in which the alleged damages exceed

1 $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. “Subject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived or

2 forfeited,” and “courts are obligated to consider sua sponte” subject matter jurisdiction

3 even when not raised by the parties. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012).

4 The Complaint does not establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See

5 Compl. The Complaint identifies federal question and diversity jurisdiction as the basis

6 for federal court jurisdiction. See Compl. at 2-11. However, Plaintiff asserts the following

7 as a basis for federal question jurisdiction: “attempting to kidnapping to kill me and my

8 family, taking phone, tracking bank accounts, emails to get locations and position I report

9 to U.S. Customs and F.B.I in Yuma, Arizona.” Id. at 11. The Complaint includes bare and

10 minimal allegations that do not present a discernible federal question or federal claim, to

11 the extent the facts are discernible.

12 The Complaint also fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not state

13 an amount in controversy and Plaintiff does not establish complete diversity of

14 citizenship. On the face of the Complaint, Plaintiff and many of the Defendants appear to

15 be citizens of California. Compl. at 2-6, 10. Plaintiff also lists himself as both an

16 Oklahoma and California citizen. Compare Compl. at 2, with Compl. at 11; 1-1 at 1; see

17 also Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Section

18 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of

19 a different state than each of the defendants.”). Because there is no amount in

20 controversy alleged and no diversity of citizenship established here, the Court finds that

21 it also lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, the

22 Court recommends this action be dismissed because the Court lacks subject matter

23 jurisdiction over this action.

24 B. Failure to Comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

25 Plaintiff’s Complaint also does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim

26 as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In order to give fair notice of the claims

27 and the grounds on which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of

28 particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v.

1 Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, the Complaint does not contain facts

2 supporting any cognizable legal claim against Defendants. The Complaint consists of

3 vague and conclusory allegations that fail to establish Plaintiff’s causes of action.

4 Because the Complaint is unintelligible, granting leave to amend in this case would not

5 be fruitful.

6 In addition, in a separate action, Plaintiff has alleged almost identical facts with

7 most of the defendants named in this lawsuit and this action has been dismissed for

8 failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with the Court’s order. See J. Jesus Ramos

9 Rodriguez v. Maria Xochitl Mejia Torres, et al., 2:24-cv-1025-DC-SCR (E.D. Cal. Jan. 21,

10 2025) (dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with

11 the Court’s order to show cause ordering Plaintiff to show cause why the action should

12 not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.). Although the Federal Rules

13 adopt a flexible pleading policy, even a pro se litigant’s complaint must give fair notice

14 and state the elements of a claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev.

15 Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The Complaint therefore fails to state a claim

16 on which relief may be granted and is subject to dismissal. See McHenry v. Renne, 84

17 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot

18 determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with

19 enough detail to guide discovery”).

20 C. Leave to Amend

21 In considering whether leave to amend should be granted, the Court finds that the

22 Complaint consists entirely of minimal allegations with no discernible basis in law. See

23 generally Compl. The Complaint does not contain facts supporting any cognizable legal

24 claim against Defendants. In light of the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the

25 Complaint’s deficiencies, granting leave to amend would be futile. The Complaint should

26 therefore be dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cato

27 v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995).

28 / / /

1 || V. CONCLUSION

2 Based upon the findings above, it is RECOMMENDED that:

3 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be DENIED;

4 2. Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED without leave to amend;

5 and

6 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case.

7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

8 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

9 | 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

10 | written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should

11 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any

12 | reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14

13 | days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time

14 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,

15 | 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

16

17 || Dated: September 11, 2025 C iy S \U

18 CHI SOO KIM

49 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 || 4, ramo2143.25

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28