United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Charles Bobo, is proceeding in this action pro se. This
matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with
Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending
before the court is plaintiff's complaint and motion to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
(ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Therein, plaintiff asks that this court
grant plaintiff custody of his daughter and $500, 000, 000 in
court is required to screen complaints brought by parties
proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff's
complaint is deficient and it appears that granting leave to
amend would be futile. Accordingly, for the reasons stated
below, the undersigned will recommend that plaintiff's
complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.
Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma
in forma pauperis application makes the financial showing
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, a
determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in
forma pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required
by the statute. “‘A district court may deny leave
to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from
the face of the proposed complaint that the action is
frivolous or without merit.'” Minetti v. Port
of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting
Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d
1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Department
of Child Support Services, 584 Fed.Appx. 638 (9th Cir.
2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion
by denying McGee's request to proceed IFP because it
appears from the face of the amended complaint that
McGee's action is frivolous or without merit”);
Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965)
(“It is the duty of the District Court to examine any
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to
determine whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it
appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is
bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma
the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time
if the allegation of poverty is found to be untrue or if it
is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is
legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or
in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28
(9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a
complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e).
state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff
must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In considering
whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court
accepts as true the material allegations in the complaint and
construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S.
69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex
Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United
States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245
Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent
standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court
need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable
inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western
Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir.
minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court
are as follows:
A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall
contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon
which the court's jurisdiction depends . . ., (2) a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the
relief the pleader seeks.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
complaint fails to contain a short and plain statement of the
grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends. The
basic federal jurisdiction statutes are 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1332, which confer “federal
question” and “diversity” jurisdiction,
respectively. Federal jurisdiction may also be conferred by
federal statutes regulating specific subject matter.
“[T]he existence of federal jurisdiction depends solely
on the plaintiff's claims for relief and not on
anticipated defenses to those claims.” ARCO Envtl.
Remediation, LLC v. Dep't of Health & Envtl.
Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000).
courts have diversity jurisdiction only over “all civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, ”
and the action is between: “(1) citizens of different
States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a
foreign state; (3) citizens of different States and in which
citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional
parties; and (4) a foreign state . . . as plaintiff and
citizens of a State or of different States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. “To demonstrate citizenship for diversity
purposes a party must (a) be a citizen of the United States,
and (b) be domiciled in a state of the United States.”
Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986).
“Diversity jurisdiction ...