(PS) Boddie v. Blue Diamond Growers

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 ERIC S. BODDIE, No. 2:24-cv-02288-TLN-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, [13] v. ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST [14] BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, et. al., AND DISMISSING WITH LEAVE TO [15] AMEND Defendants. [18] Plaintiff Eric S. Boddie proceeds pro se in this action which is referred to the undersigned [19] by Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b). Plaintiff has filed an application in [20] support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis which makes the showing required by 28 21 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 2 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam). 3 II. ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT 4 Plaintiff’s complaint names Blue Diamond Growers, Candace Mahoney, and Doug 5 Crabree as defendants. The complaint is devoid of factual allegations, other than plaintiff’s claim 6 that he was fired due to “discrimination.” (ECF No. 1 at 4.) 7 III. PLEADING STANDARDS 8 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 9 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 10 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 11 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 , 1126-27 12 (2000). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 13 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 14 court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 15 baseless or fanciful, and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 16 See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327 ; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 17 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 18 Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines 19 v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory 20 allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council 21 v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 22 action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 , 555-57 23 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 24 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 25 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 . “A claim has facial 26 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 27 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 . A pro se 28 litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend 1 unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 2 F.2d 1446 , 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Lopez v. 3 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). [4] IV. THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM AND FAILS TO SET [5] FORTH A BASIS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION 6 Plaintiff has neither alleged a specific cause of action nor provided any facts from which the 7 court can infer a cause of action over which the court has original jurisdiction. It appears that the 8 court may not have federal question jurisdiction over this action as plaintiff does not assert any 9 federal claims against any defendant, and there is no diversity of citizenship jurisdiction because 10 both plaintiff and defendants are citizens of California. See McDaniel v. Hinch, No. 2:17-cv 11 02448-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2018) (“[W]ith no stated claim triggering either diversity or 12 federal question jurisdiction, the complaint is properly subject to dismissal for lack of 13 jurisdiction”). 14 V. CONCLUSION 15 The complaint must be dismissed, but plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended 16 complaint. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely 17 clear that no amendment can cure the defect… a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the 18 complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.”). An 19 amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint.” Local Rule 220 requires that an 20 amended complaint be complete by itself without reference to any prior pleading. 21 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 22 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 23 2. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend. 24 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 25 complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 ///// 27 ///// [28] ] and the Local Rules of Practice; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with 2 this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 3 | Dated: March 12, 2025 Card ft 4 LA g. ae 4 CAROLYNK. DELANEY SOS 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [7] cKDBoddie2288.sem [10] 1]