United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSIAL
OF PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Barbara A. McAuliffe, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Sisomphone Phanvongkham and Felicia Navarro are proceeding
pro se and have been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis in this action. (Docs. 2, 3). Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint is currently before the Court for
Court is required to screen complaints brought by persons
proceeding in pro per. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiffs' Complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject
to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . .
.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a
plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts
“are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally
construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor,
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-1123 (9th
Cir. 2012), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th
Cir. 2010), but to survive screening, Plaintiff's claims
must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual
detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation
marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret
Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer
possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not
sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short
of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at
First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is extremely
difficult to read. See “Plaintiffs (ProSe)
individual self litigants First Amend Summery Complaints
against the same parties, defendant respondent client alt
parties REFERENCE to other jurisdiction procedural small
claim action appeal division de-novo court trial for
defendants respondents alt parties alleged allegation False
Claim Action Nature of Suit” (Doc. 9). The allegations
contain many incoherent and indecipherable sentences, with
little detail about the exact actions of the Defendant.
this, as best the Court can gather, Plaintiffs'
allegations concern an eviction dispute in the Fresno County
Superior Court. Plaintiffs allege that the sole Defendant,
Melissa Moutrie, submitted false evidence in an effort to
pursue an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiffs for
unpaid rent. Plaintiffs' subsequent eviction or
“constructive eviction” therefore amounted to an
unlawful or retaliatory eviction. Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages in an unspecified amount for the unlawful eviction.
initial matter, the Court must determine whether it has the
authority to consider the claims alleged. Federal courts are
courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general
subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate
only those cases in which the United States Constitution and
Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994). To proceed
in federal court, Plaintiffs' Complaint must establish
the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts
are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions,
and the burden to establish the contrary rests upon the party
asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377,
114 S.Ct. at 1677. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
never waived and may be raised by the court sua sponte.
Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products,
Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594595 (9th Cir. 1996).
“Nothing is to be more jealously guarded by a court
than its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what its power rests
upon. Without jurisdiction it is nothing.” In re
Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1988), (per
curiam), overruled on other grounds in Partington v.
Gedan, 923 F.2d 686, 688 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
There are two bases for original federal subject matter
jurisdiction: 1) diversity jurisdiction and 2) federal
Plaintiffs do not specify which theory they are proceeding
on, federal question or diversity jurisdiction. However, a
review of the First Amended Complaint reveals it should be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under both