1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICOLE JEAN ROGERS, Case No. 2:24-cv-01762-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME

14 SHIRLEY WARD-RUST, ECF No. 4 15 Defendant.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

16

THAT PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED

17 COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT

LEAVE TO AMEND

18 ECF No. 5 19 20 Plaintiff’s initial complaint did not present a federal question. See ECF Nos. 1 & 3. I 21 offered her a chance to amend, and plaintiff has done so, ECF No. 5. I will grant plaintiff’s 22 motion for an extension of time to file a complaint. However, the amended complaint, like its 23 predecessor, still fails to present a federal question—or, indeed, any intelligible claim at all. 24 Given that plaintiff is no closer to advancing a complaint that survives screening, I now 25 recommend that this action be dismissed. 26 27 28 1 Screening and Pleading Requirements 2 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 3 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 4 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 5 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 6 relief. Id. 7 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 9 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 10 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 11 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 12 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 13 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 14 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 15 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 16 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 17 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 18 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 19 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 20 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 21 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 22 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 23 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 24 Analysis 25 Plaintiff’s amended complaint is a single page and appears to allege claims against her 26 former foster parent, Shirley Ann Ward-Rust. ECF No. 5 at 1. Plaintiff claims that she was 27 wrongfully sent to juvenile hall for allegedly “pushing a laundry basket.” Id. She also claims, 28 without elaboration, that Ward-Rust and her husband stole her mail and exploited her “in child 1 pornography and video surveillance.” Id. These vague and conclusory allegations do not state 2 cognizable or intelligible claims, and plaintiff has not alleged any other basis for federal 3 jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (“Federal 4 courts are courts of limited jurisdiction . . . . It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside of this 5 limited jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting 6 jurisdiction . . . .”) (internal citations omitted). 7 I find that, given plaintiff’s inability to remedy the underlying deficiencies in her initial 8 complaint, no further opportunities to amend are warranted. See Broughton v. Cutter 9 Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding that dismissal without leave to amend is 10 proper where “it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 11 amendment”). 12 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, ECF 13 No. 4, is GRANTED and her amended complaint is deemed timely. 14 Further it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s amended complaint, ECF No. 5, be 15 DISMISSED without leave to amend for want of federal jurisdiction and failure to state a 16 cognizable claim. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 19 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 20 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 21 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 22 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 23 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 24 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 25 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 26 27 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ October 15, 2024 Q_—— 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28