(PS) Bonds v. Diana

[6] 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [9] 10 ALBERT BONDS, Jr., No. 2:25-cv-01635-DAD-SCR 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER [13] JOHN V. DIANA, et al., [14] Defendants. [16] 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant 18 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to 19 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted a declaration including a statement of 20 income and assets and averring he is unable to pay the costs of this proceeding. The motion to 21 proceed IFP will therefore be granted. However, for the reasons provided below, the Court finds 22 Plaintiff’s complaint is legally deficient and will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended 23 complaint. 24 I. SCREENING 25 A. Legal Standard 26 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 27 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 28 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). In 1 reviewing the complaint, the Court is guided by the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil 2 Procedure. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules3 policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 4 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 5 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 6 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 7 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 8 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 10 the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 11 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 12 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 will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 15 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 16 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327 ; Von 17 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 18 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 19 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 20 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 21 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 22 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 23 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 . However, the 24 court need not accept as true legal conclusions, even if cast as factual allegations. See Moss v. 25 U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). A formulaic recitation of the elements of 26 a cause of action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 , 27 555-57 (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 2 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 3 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 4 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 5 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Akhtar v. 6 Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1213 (9th Cir. 2012). 7 B. The Complaint 8 Plaintiff’s complaint is three-pages long and names four defendants in the caption: John 9 Diana, Deborah Taylor, Diana Law Group, and Tim Hudson. ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff does not 10 describe the Defendants other than to say he “brings this complaint against Defendants Tim 11 Hudson and his attorney.” Id. Plaintiff asserts two state law claims: breach of contract and 12 “property negligence.” Id. 13 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges there is diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 14 1332, but he does not allege the citizenship of any party. Id. at 2 . Plaintiff alleges the amount in 15 controversy exceeds $75,000, but then pleads more specific damages of $11,000 for “storage and 16 negligence fees”; “4yrs $300 month”; and $20,000 for attorney fees. Id. Plaintiff also states that 17 he “requests removal of Probate Case #PR24-00051 from the Superior Court of California, 18 Solano County.” Id. at 2 . Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Id. at 3 . 19 Plaintiff alleges that he entered into a contract with all Defendants concerning an estate. 20 The terms or requirements of the contract are not pled. ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff’s negligence 21 claim appears directed at Defendant Hudson and he allege Hudson has not maintained the 22 property and has mold in the closet. Id. at 2 . Plaintiff states the property is not for sale and he 23 has been in possession of the home since 2021. Id. 24 C. Analysis 25 The complaint does not sufficiently plead a basis for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff does 26 not plead the citizenship of the parties. Plaintiff alleges specific damages that do not exceed 27 $75,000. He pleads $11,000 + (48 months at $300 month, which equals $14,400) + $20,000 = 28 $45,400. Plaintiff and all Defendants must be citizens of different states for diversity jurisdiction. 1 See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (diversity jurisdiction requires “complete 2 diversity of citizenship” where “the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of 3 each defendant.”). 4 Plaintiff also appears to be improperly attempting to remove a state probate matter to 5 federal court. See Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311-12 (2006) (“Thus, the probate 6 exception reserves to state probate courts the probate or annulment of a will and the 7 administration of a decedent’s estate; it also precludes federal courts from endeavoring to dispose 8 of property that is in the custody of a state probate court. But it does not bar federal courts from 9 adjudicating matters outside those confines and otherwise within federal jurisdiction.”). Plaintiff 10 does not adequately plead a basis for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s complaint contains one 11 sentence mentioning a taking of property under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amended, but Plaintiff 12 has not alleged state action, or that any of the Defendants are state actors. 13 Additionally, the complaint does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1)- 14 (2) as it does not contain a “short and plain” statement setting forth the grounds for federal 15 jurisdiction, or a short and plain statement showing Plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. The exact 16 nature of Plaintiff’s claims is unclear from the complaint. It has something to do with a dispute 17 over property and a state probate matter. Plaintiff cannot challenge the judgment of the state 18 probate court in federal court. Federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to review final state 19 court judgments. See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The Rooker-Feldman 20 doctrine prevents “a party losing in state court … from seeking what in substance would be 21 appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court.” Henrich v. Valley View 22 Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 611 (9th Cir. 2009); See also Ignacio v. Judges of U.S. Court of Appeals, 453 23 F.3d 1160 , 1165-66 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal “because the complaint is nothing more 24 than another attack on the California superior court’s determination in [the plaintiff’s] domestic 25 case.”). 26 Plaintiff also fails to state a claim. Under California law, the elements of a claim for 27 breach of contract are: 1) the existence of a contract; 2) a plaintiff’s performance or excuse for 28 nonperformance; 3) a defendant’s breach; and 4) resulting damage to plaintiff. Reinhardt v. 1 Gemini Motor Transport, 879 F.Supp.2d 1138, 1143 (E.D. Cal. 2012). Plaintiff makes only 2 conclusory allegations that there was a contract, it was breached, and he was damaged. Plaintiff’s 3 claim for negligence is also inadequately pled. See Cisco Systems, Inc. v. STMicroelectronics, 77 4 F.Supp.3d 887, 895 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“To state a cognizable claim for negligence under 5 California law, plaintiff must establish four required elements: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; 6 and (4) damages.”). Plaintiff’s allegations of negligence are unclear. The negligence claim 7 appears to be against only Defendant Tim Hudson and involve the maintenance of property. 8 Accordingly, the complaint does not establish this court’s jurisdiction, does not comply 9 with Rule 8, and fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Under 28 U.S.C. § 10 1915(e), the Court “shall dismiss the case at any time” if it fails to state a claim on which relief 11 may be granted. However, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and a pro se litigant should be given 12 leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. 13 Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012). Rather than recommending dismissal of the 14 action, the undersigned will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to allege a 15 proper basis for jurisdiction and facts supporting a cognizable cause of action. 16 II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 17 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts 18 establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction. In addition, it must contain a short and plain 19 statement of Plaintiff’s claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially 20 numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each 21 paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the 22 complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where 23 possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their 24 complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor 25 (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 26 The amended complaint must not force the Court or the Defendants to guess at what is 27 being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 , 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996) 28 (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 1 facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 2 complaint should contain specific allegations as to the actions of each named defendant rather 3 than making conclusory allegations that the defendants collectively violated plaintiff’s rights. 4 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s 5 amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 6 reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 7 complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline 8 Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 , 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint 9 supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & 10 Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 11 original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 12 alleged. 13 Plaintiff’s amended complaint must address the issues set forth herein. It must plead a 14 basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff must also allege enough facts in support of 15 his claims for breach of contract and negligence to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 16 face. 17 III. CONCLUSION 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 20 2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint 21 that addresses the defects set forth above. The amended complaint must include a 22 sufficient jurisdictional statement and comply with Rule 8. If Plaintiff fails to timely 23 comply with this order, the undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed. 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 3. Alternatively, if Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, Plaintiff may file a notice 2 of voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil 3 Procedure. 4 SO ORDERED. 5 || DATED: July 1, 2025 7 SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [10] 1]