United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Liudmyla Iegorova, proceeding without counsel, commenced this
action and requested leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.)
federal court has an independent duty to assess whether
federal subject matter jurisdiction exists, whether or not
the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life
Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967
(9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had a
duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the
removed action sua sponte, whether the parties
raised the issue or not”); accord Rains v.
Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996).
The court must sua sponte dismiss the case if, at
any time, it determines that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
the substantiality doctrine, the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction when the question presented is too
insubstantial to consider.” Cook v. Peter Kiewit
Sons Co., 775 F.2d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-39 (1974)).
“The claim must be ‘so insubstantial,
implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court or
otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a
federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the District
Court, whatever may be the ultimate resolution of the federal
issues on the merits.'” Id. (quoting
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S.
661, 666 (1974)); see also Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d
477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (“[A] district court may, at
any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a
complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial,
frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to
complaint here alleges that in May 2016 an employee for
defendant Intercom Security fraudulently reported plaintiff,
apparently while at a government building, which caused the
Sacramento Police to demand plaintiff to leave. (ECF No. 1.)
According to plaintiff, these acts amounted to corruption and
fraud against plaintiff's life and health and violated 18
U.S.C. § 241. (Id.) Additionally, the complaint
alleges that documents were stolen from plaintiff in July
2015. (Id.) Plaintiff demands ninety nine trillion
dollars in damages. (Id.)
initial matter, plaintiff, as a private citizen, has no
standing to prosecute any alleged crimes. Moreover, even if
plaintiff's claims could be construed as civil claims,
the court finds that plaintiff's allegations are
implausible, frivolous, devoid of merit, and unsubstantial.
Therefore, the court concludes that this action should be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
the substantiality doctrine.
the court, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and applicable case law, ordinarily liberally
grants leave to amend, especially to pro se
litigants, the nature of plaintiff's complaint here
strongly suggests that granting leave to amend would be
futile. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d
336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). Moreover, the court notes that
plaintiff has already filed numerous frivolous actions in
this district, including against former President Obama,
President Trump, Target Corporation, Chase Bank, the
Intercontinental Hotel Group, the Social Security
Administration, the State Department, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and various apartment
complexes. Such prior frivolous actions further counsel
against granting leave to amend.
it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. The action be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to the substantiality doctrine; and
2. Plaintiff s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(ECF No. 2) be denied as moot.
findings and recommendations are submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen
(14) days after being served with these findings and
recommendations, any party may file written objections with
the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to
the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with
the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the
objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
objections within the ...