The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 CYNTHIA FAYE GARCIA, No. 2:25-cv-03678-DAD-CKD (PS)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND
DISMISSING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
14 WALMART, INC.,
15 Defendant.
16
17
18 Plaintiff Cynthia Faye Garcia proceeds pro se in this action which is referred to the
19 undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Plaintiff has filed an
20 application in support of her request to proceed in forma pauperis which makes the showing
21 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF No. 2.) The request will be granted.
22
I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
23
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis
24
proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a
25
claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
26
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27
27
(2000). In performing this screening, the court liberally construes a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings.
28
1 See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S.
2 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam).
3 II. ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT
4 Plaintiff’s Complaint names Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”), as a defendant. (ECF No.1.)
5 Plaintiff alleges the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action through “civil
6 constitutional law.” Id. at 1. The remainder of the Complaint alleges a negligence claim against
7 Defendant Walmart. Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges she was injured because of a slip and fall in a
8 Walmart restroom, which she attributes to the absence of “certain handrails not being installed at
9 the time of her accident.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that she has been left partially paralyzed and
10 underwent surgery following the incident. Id.
11 III. PLEADING STANDARDS
12 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis
13 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a
14 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
15 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27
16 (2000). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
17 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the
18 court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly
19 baseless or fanciful, and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See
20 Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954,
21 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).
22 Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines
23 v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory
24 allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council
25 v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
26 action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57
27 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
28 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to
1 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial
2 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
3 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se
4 litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend
5 unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809
6 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Lopez v.
7 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
8 IV. THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM AND FAILS TO SET
9 FORTH A BASIS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION
10 Plaintiff alleges her claims have federal jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) However, she fails
11 to allege any federal claims against Defendant Walmart. Moreover, it is unclear from the face of
12 the Complaint whether there is diversity of citizenship among the parties. Plaintiff may litigate
13 her claims in federal court if she can establish diversity of citizenship, meaning, “the matter in
14 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000… and is between citizens of different states.” 28
15 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff does not allege a sum of monetary damages, however, if she were to do
16 so she could establish that her claims are between two parties from different states as the address
17 listed on the Complaint is from Oroville, California. (See ECF No. 1 at 1.)
18 Plaintiff also appears to allege “gross negligence” against Defendant Walmart. To state a
19 claim for negligence, a plaintiff must allege “(a) legal duty to use care; (b) a breach of legal duty;
20 [and] (c) the breach is the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.” Chaconas v. JP
21 Morgan Chase Bank, 713 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1186 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Ladd v. County of
22 San Mateo, 12 Cal. 4th 913, 917 (1996)). Plaintiff has failed to plead any of these elements. The
23 Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint.
24 V. CONCLUSION
25 The Complaint must be dismissed, but Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended
26 complaint. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely
27 clear that no amendment can cure the defect… a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the
28 complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.”). An
1 || amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint.” Local Rule 220 requires that an
2 || amended complaint be complete by itself without reference to any prior pleading.
3 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
4 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED;
5 2. Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend;
6 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service to file an amended
7 Complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
8 and the Local Rules of Practice; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance
9 with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
10 | Dated: May 20, 2026 fi se / bps
" CAROLYNK.DELANEY
12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13 || 7, gare25ev3678
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28