United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND RE: DKT. NO. 7
MARIA-ELENA JAMES, United States Magistrate Judge.
INTRODUCTION
On May
16, 2016, Plaintiff Stephanie McGee (“Plaintiff”)
filed a Complaint and an Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis. Compl., Dkt. No. 1; Appl., Dkt. No. 3. The Court
granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint on the ground that
Plaintiff’s allegations were unclear at that point, and
as such, the Court could not find she stated a claim for
relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 or that the
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Order,
Dkt. No. 6. Additionally, the Court noted that, as it
appeared Plaintiff was attempting to challenge a state court
order, the “Rooker-Feldman doctrine”
precluded such de facto appeals. Id. While the Court
thus dismissed Plaintiff’s original Complaint, it also
granted her leave to file an amended complaint. Id.
Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”) on July 28, 2016. Dkt. No. 7. As
Plaintiff continues to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court
is under a continuing obligation to screen Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Having
done so, the Court finds that it must DISMISS the FAC with
leave to amend.
SUA
SPONTE SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)
A.
Legal Standards
Under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss the
Complaint if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief. To make this
determination, courts assess whether there is a factual and
legal basis for the asserted wrong, “however inartfully
pleaded.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,
1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984) (quotation omitted). Pro se pleadings
are liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Unless it is clear that no
amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se
plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to notice
and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. Noll v.
Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). Because a
dismissal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B) is not a dismissal
on the merits, but rather an exercise of the court’s
discretion under the IFP statute, the dismissal does not
prejudice the filing of a paid complaint making the same
allegations. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32
(1992).
Additionally,
a federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may
adjudicate only those cases authorized by the United States
Constitution and by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic federal
jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 &
1332, confer “federal question” and
“diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal
question jurisdiction requires that the complaint (1) arise
under a federal law or the Constitution, (2) allege a
“case or controversy” within the meaning of
Article III, § 2 of the Constitution, or (3) be
authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a
specific subject matter and confers federal jurisdiction.
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke a
federal court’s jurisdiction, a plaintiff must
specifically allege facts demonstrating that court has
subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1) (a pleading
that states a claim for relief must contain “a short
and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction.”). A case presumably lies outside the
jurisdiction of the federal courts unless demonstrated
otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of
subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by any
party or by the court. See Attorneys Tr. v. Videotape
Comput. Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir.
1996).
B.
Allegations in the FAC
Plaintiff
is a California resident. FAC ¶ 1(a). She alleges she
began receiving public assistance for her son through the
County of Alameda in 1995, and in 1996, learned a judgment of
child support had been entered in her favor, and “an
account had been established” in her name to collect
child support payments. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. She
further alleges the State of California
(“Defendant”) collected child support on her
behalf, but moved the assets to another account. Id.
¶¶ 7-8. Plaintiff alleges she is owed $347, 000 in
child support arrears, but has not “received a
cent” of the monies collected by the State in her name.
Id. ¶ 7. In 2015, Alameda County sent Plaintiff
a letter informing her that, after a 2005 hearing, “it
was determined that arrears of $48, 000 was owed to you. We
were ordered by the court to set aside those arrears, dismiss
and close this case and make no further efforts to collect on
those arrears.” Id., Ex. B. Plaintiff
characterizes this letter as showing “an error had been
made that my judgment of $48, 000 had been paid out in error
to the wrong person. The money had been distributed in error
by the state.” FAC ¶ 8.
Based
on these facts, Plaintiff alleges Defendant “did not
carry out its obligations or administer a program of Child
Support Enforcement (CSE) that meets the requirements of
Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. The state was not in
compliance with the Federal Statu[t]e mandates. The nature of
my case is for breach of contract . . . . My claim is for
entitlement to money under a Federal Program (Title IV-D of
the Social Security Act) which is implemented through grants
to the State.” Id. ¶ 3; see also
id. ¶ 12. She asserts state law claims for fraud,
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, conversion,
unjust enrichment, and accounting. See generally
FAC.
Plaintiff
alleges federal subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 “to determine whether a state
administrative agency correctly interprets State and Federal
law and the interpretation of the Title IV-D [of] the Social
Security Act presents a federal question.” Id.
¶ 2.
C.
Analysis and Screening
Having
carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the
undersigned finds the FAC must be dismissed for lack of
federal subject matter jurisdiction:
1.
No Federal ...