Komitee

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 ALYSSA DOWLING, No. 2:26-cv-1859 TLN AC PS

11 Plaintiff,

12 v. ORDER

13 ERIC KOMITEE,

14 Defendant.

15

16 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the

17 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed in forma

18 pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C.

19 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) will therefore be granted.

20 I. Screening

21 A. Standards

22 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally

23 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks

24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

25 Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether the complaint is frivolous, by drafting the

26 complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). The

27 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-

28 rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure.

1 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and

2 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this

3 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled

4 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief

5 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly.

6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in

7 the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200),

8 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms.

9 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

10 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the

11 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they

12 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the

13 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von

14 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.

15 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).

16 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint

17 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court

18 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must

19 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a

20 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520

21 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable

22 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618,

23 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice

24 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

25 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

26 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to

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

28 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

1 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

2 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity

3 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v.

4 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in

5 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc).

6 B. The Complaint

7 Plaintiff’s one-page complaint does not contain any substantive information. ECF No. 1.

8 Plaintiff, who lists an address for herself in Wichita, Kansas, identifies Eric Komitee as the

9 defendant but does not provide any information about Mr. Komitee. The entire substance of

10 plaintiff’s complaint reads: “Claim: Defendant displayed discrimination. Fact: ERIC KOMITEE

11 failed to show due respect.” ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff requests relief that is “just and proper.” Id.

12 Plaintiff also requests leave to amend before dismissal. Id.

13 C. Analysis

14 Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be served at this time because the complaint fails to comply

15 with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Notice pleading in federal court requires

16 that the complaint “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon

17 which it rests.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citation and

18 quotations omitted). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “(1) a short and plain

19 statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction ...; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim

20 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may

21 include relief in the alternative or different types of relief” and clearly and fully set forth “who is

22 being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.”

23 McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996). Failure to submit a complaint that meets

24 the requirements of Rule 8 may lead to dismissal. “The propriety of dismissal for failure to

25 comply with Rule 8 does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly without merit. [Rule 8’s

26 requirement that] each averment of a pleading to be ‘simple, concise, and direct,’ applies to good

27 claims as well as bad, and is a basis for dismissal independent of Rule 12(b)(6).” McHenry, 84

28 F.3d at 1179.

1 Plaintiff’s complaint does not provide any facts at all. It is not clear who Mr. Komitee is,

2 what he did to plaintiff, or what law plaintiff asserts he violated. Failure to show due respect is

3 not a violation of law. Without more information, the court cannot tell whether any violation of

4 law occurred. For these reasons the complaint does not comply with Rule 8.

5 Additionally, it is not clear that the court has jurisdiction to hear this case. “Federal courts

6 are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375,

7 377, (1994). In 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a), “Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction

8 over two general types of cases: cases that “aris[e] under” federal law, § 1331, and cases in which

9 the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000 and there is diversity of citizenship among the

10 parties, § 1332(a). These jurisdictional grants are known as “federal-question jurisdiction” and

11 “diversity jurisdiction,” respectively. Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435, 437

12 (2019). Plaintiff does not state whether or not the defendant is alleged to have violated federal

13 law, so it is unclear whether there is federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not identify

14 where defendant lives or the amount of money at issue in this case, so the court cannot tell if there

15 is diversity jurisdiction.

16 Finally, the court cannot tell if the Eastern District of California in Sacramento is the

17 proper location for this lawsuit to be heard. The federal venue statute provides that a civil action

18 “may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are

19 residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial

20 part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property

21 that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may

22 otherwise be brought as provided in this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is

23 subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

24 The only information the court has is that plaintiff lives in Kansas. Without knowing where

25 defendant lives or where any relevant events took place, the court cannot tell if this case belongs

26 in Sacramento.

27 In sum, the complaint as drafted does not meet federal court pleading requirements and

28 accordingly cannot be served. However, rather than recommending dismissal, the court will

1 allow plaintiff to file an amended complaint correcting the deficient pleading.

2 II. Leave to Amend

3 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts

4 establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction, and it must include basic information like who

5 the defendant is and where he lives. In addition, it must contain a short and plain statement of

6 plaintiff’s claims: what laws were violated, and how. The allegations of the complaint must be

7 set forth in sequentially numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater

8 than the one before, each paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being

9 repeated anywhere in the complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of

10 circumstances” where possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help

11 plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office,

12 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at

13 www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms.

14 Plaintiff must avoid excessive repetition of the same allegations. Plaintiff must avoid

15 narrative and storytelling. That is, the complaint should not include every detail of what

16 happened, nor recount the details of conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim), nor

17 give a running account of plaintiff’s hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint should

18 contain only those facts needed to show how the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff.

19 The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is

20 being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996)

21 (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what

22 facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended

23 complaint must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’

24 which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not

25 require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for

26 what.” Id. at 1179.

27 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading to make plaintiff’s

28 amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete without reference to any

1 || prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint

2 || supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Communications, Inc.,

3 || 555 US. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[nJormally, an amended complaint supersedes the original

4 | complaint’) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57

5 || 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and

6 || the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

7 III. Pro Se Plaintiff?s Summary

8 It is not clear that this case can proceed in federal court. The court cannot tell from your

9 || complaint whether you have a legal claim because the complaint has too little information.

10 || Because the complaint as written does not comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule

11 | of Civil Procedure 8(a), it will not be served on defendants. Your lawsuit cannot proceed unless

12 || you fix the problems with your complaint.

13 You are being given 30 days to submit an amended complaint complying with the Federal

14 | Rules of Civil Procedure. If you submit an amended complaint, it needs to explain in simple

15 || terms what laws or legal rights of yours were violated, by whom and how, and how those

16 || violations impacted you. You must identify who the defendant 1s, where he lives, and where the

17 || events important to your claims took place. If you do not submit an amended complaint by the

18 || deadline, the undersigned will recommend that the case be dismissed.

19 IV. Conclusion

20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

21 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED;

22 2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that

23 complies with the instructions given above. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this

24 order, the undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed.

25 || DATED: May 26, 2026 *

Ctt10 Lhar—e_

26 ALLISONCLAIRE. SS

27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28