United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was
accordingly referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal.
302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required
by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
ECF No. 2. The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be
federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case
if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,
” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not
the complaint is frivolous, by drafting the complaint so that
it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure are available online at
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this
standard, the court will (1) accept as true all of the
factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they
are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those
allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
(3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. See
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon
Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir.
2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).
court applies the same rules of construction in determining
whether the complaint states a claim on which relief can be
granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(court must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v.
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must construe
the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff).
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. 1981). A formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not
suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
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.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the
deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend,
unless the complaint's deficiencies could not be cured by
amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448
(9th Cir. 1987).
who has a California address, brings suit under several
sections of the federal criminal code (18 U.S.C. § 351,
18 U.S.C. § 1113, 18 U.S.C. § 371, and 18 U.S.C.
§ 241) against defendant Sutter Hospital, which is
located in Sacramento, California. ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff
alleges that he, as attorney for a Ms. Iegorova, had been
arrested in a car in the parking lot of an Administrative
Hearings office by a “civil man” without any
questions or Miranda Law instruction. Id. at 2.
alleges that employees of Sutter Hospital were walking around
and ignored his request for an insulin shot, blood glucose
test, and blood pressure check, as well as his complaints of
pain in his temples. Id. Plaintiff alleges he
suffers from diabetes and neurologic pain. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that he had to wait for one hour in the
Emergency Room before he was assisted. Id. at 3. He
claims as a result he suffered damage to his internal organs,
damages to his brain, sharp pain from broken nerves, and lost
his hearing and vision. Id. Plaintiff seeks two
trillion dollars in damages. Id.
complaint provides no basis for federal jurisdiction, and his
complaint must be dismissed. Jurisdiction is a threshold
inquiry that must precede the adjudication of any case before
the district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v.
Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th
Cir. 1988). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction
and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by federal
law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S.
131, 136-37 (1992). “Federal courts are presumed to
lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary appears
affirmatively from the record.'” Casey v.
Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting
Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S.
534, 546 (1986)). Without jurisdiction, the district court
cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief and
must dismiss the case. See Morongo, 858 F.2d at
may be established by a showing that the plaintiff and
defendant are diverse (from different sates) and that the
amount in controversy is over $75, 000. 28 U.S.C. §
1332. Plaintiff cannot establish diversity jurisdiction
because both he and defendant are from California. ECF No. 1
at 1. Thus, jurisdiction for this case cannot be established
on the basis of diversity. Jurisdiction may also be
established by bringing a claim based on federal law; this is
known as “federal question” jurisdiction. 28
U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff apparently intends to rely on
this basis of jurisdiction because he brings claims based on
federal criminal law. ECF No. 1 at 1. However, a citizen does
not have authority to bring criminal charges. “Criminal
proceedings, unlike private civil proceedings, are public
acts initiated and controlled by the Executive Branch.”
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 718 (1997).
Plaintiff cannot bring the federal criminal claims described
in his complaint, and no other federal claims are apparent
from the content of his complaint. Accordingly, the complaint
both fails to establish a basis for federal jurisdiction and
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon plaintiff as
the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S.
at 377. Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden, and the
undersigned recommends his complaint be dismissed. The
undersigned further recommends that leave to amend not
granted in this instance because it is clear from the
allegations in the complaint that federal jurisdiction is ...