United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS WITH
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dmitriy Yegorov, proceeding without counsel, commenced this
action and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF
Nos. 1, 2. After the court reviewed its records, the
undersigned ordered plaintiff to show cause why he should not
be declared a vexatious litigant. The OSC was returned to the
court as undeliverable on October 30, 2019, and plaintiff
failed to appear at the show cause hearing on November 13,
2019. Although the undersigned is convinced that Mr. Yegorov
qualifies as a vexatious litigant, for the reasons set forth
in the OSC (ECF No. 4), the mail indicates that plaintiff may
not have received the notice and opportunity to be heard that
are required prior to imposition of a vexatious litigant
order. Accordingly, the undersigned makes no recommendation
on that issue at this time.
court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint, and subject
matter jurisdiction entirely lacking. The undersigned
accordingly recommends that this action be dismissed with
prejudice and that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) be DENIED.
August 28, 2019, Mr. Yegorov filed this action against
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra pursuant to a
section of the U.S. Criminal Code, 18 USC § 241. ECF No.
1. Mr. Yegorov seeks damages resulting from an alleged fraud
committed upon himself and his mother, Ms. Iegorova, by all
departments of California government. Id. at 1. The
complaint is largely unintelligible. It mentions a
“disability representative” who is a “20
years juris doctor” and who informed plaintiff that
Vladimir Putin paid President Trump $200, 000 for a
citizenship action related to Ms. Iegorova. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that a legal representative refused to open
a case with IHSS (In Home Support Services) for Ms. Iegorova.
Id. Petitioner seeks $999 trillion in damages.
Id. at 2.
The Court Lacks Jurisdiction
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); 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.
plaintiff sues the Attorney General of the State of
California, who is not alleged to have personally committed
any wrong, under a provision of federal criminal law. ECF No.
1 at 1, 4. As plaintiff has been informed on numerous
previous occasions, 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). Accordingly, Title 18
of the United States Code does not establish any private
right of action and cannot support a civil lawsuit. See
Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980)
(criminal provisions provide no basis for civil liability).
Because plaintiff's complaint does not contain any viable
federal cause of action and because both plaintiff and
defendant are alleged to be California citizens, there is no
basis for federal jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. §
1331 or § 1332.
the court ordinarily grants leave to amend with great
liberality, especially to pro se litigants, the nature of
plaintiff s complaint here compels the conclusion that
granting leave to amend would be futile. See Cahill v.
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).
Because there is an incurable lack of jurisdiction over this
dispute, the case should be dismissed with prejudice.
on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction;
2. Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2)