1

2

3

4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CANDACE SMITH, Case No. 1:24-cv-01316-EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE

13 v. AND

14 UNIVERSITY INN HOTEL, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE

15 Defendants. DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR

16 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 8 OF

THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL

17 PROCEDURE AND FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-

MATTER JURISDICTION

18 (ECF No. 1) 19

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN

20 THIRTY (30) DAYS 21 22 Plaintiff Candace Smith (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 23 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on October 28, 2024, 24 alleges various claims against University Inn Hotel, Ramada Inn Hotel, Picadilly Inn Hotel, 25 Starbucks, Extended Stay Hotel, and Planet Fitness. 26 Plaintiff’s complaint is now before the Court for screening. Upon review, the Court finds 27 that Plaintiff’s complaint violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and the Court lacks 28 1 subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. 2 Additionally, as further explained below, Plaintiff frequently makes filings with the Court 3 that are often dismissed upon repeated identifications of deficiencies in filings that are not 4 corrected. Accordingly, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice 5 and without granting leave to amend. 6 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 7 As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court screens the complaint under 28 8 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 3). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may 9 have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action 10 or appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 11 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 12 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 13 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 14 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 15 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 16 factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. 17 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting 18 this plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are 19 not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 20 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a plaintiff’s 21 legal conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 22 Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal 23 pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that 24 pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal). 25 II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 26 In the statement of claim, Plaintiff’s complaint states: 27 Not providing [illegible] & falsly calling cops 28 upon such coondrated activities of purposely harm a ill person, putting posion, drugs, cocaine & posions in bed sheets, Food, and drink going in room w/o out permission 1 video filmy & recording w/o permson 2 Starbucks drugged drinked to sleep w/o plaintiff sexual harassment & the Like 3 Planet Fitness video & Invasion of privacy sexual Harassment. Person Injury (ECF No. 1 at 5). Additionally, the Civil Cover Sheet accompanying Plaintiff’s complaint states 4 “Tort actions to purposely cause death & Injury.” (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff asks for punitive and 5 monetary damages. (ECF No. 1 at 6). 6

III. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

7 A. Rule 8(a) 8 As set forth above, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint 9 to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although a complaint is not required to include detailed factual 11 allegations, it must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief 12 that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). It must 13 also contain “sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the 14 opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). 15 Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally participated in the 16 deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77. 17 Plaintiff’s complaint is not a short and plain statement of her claims. Plaintiff sets forth no 18 facts in her complaint to support her allegations, exclusively relying on conclusory statements, 19 and it is unclear what Plaintiff is alleging and against whom. Accordingly, the Court finds that 20 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a). 21 B. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction 22 A court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over a case “refers to a tribunal’s power to hear [the] 23 case, a matter that can never be forfeited or waived.” Union Pac. R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive 24 Engineers & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent. Region, 558 U.S. 67, 81 (2009) 25 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Moreover, courts . . . have an independent obligation to 26 determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any 27 party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28 12(h)(3), “[i]f the [C]ourt determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the 1 [C]ourt must dismiss the action.” 2 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized 3 by Constitution and statute . . . . It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited 4 jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting 5 jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citation 6 omitted). There are two main bases to establish subject-matter jurisdiction in a case. 7 First, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that “district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil 8 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Under the ‘“well- 9 pleaded complaint rule’ . . . federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented 10 on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 11 386, 392 (1987). Second, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides that “district courts shall have original 12 jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 13 $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and involves “citizens of different States.” The 14 citizenship of an individual is “determined by her state of domicile, not her state of residence,” 15 with a domicile being the individual’s “permanent home, where she resides with the intention to 16 remain or to which she intends to return.” Kanter v. Warner-Lamber Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th 17 Cir. 2001). 18 Here, Plaintiff alleges no facts to establish that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction 19 over this action. Plaintiff’s complaint indicates that the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction is both 20 diversity of citizenship and the presence of a federal question but alleges no facts in support of 21 either basis. (ECF No. 1 at 3-4). Under the section of the complaint instructing Plaintiff to set 22 forth the basis for federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff states only, “Arising vilation of rights; 23 personal injury attempted murder druggings [illegible] cocaine & posion & carbon dixode intental 24 & setup tort.” (Id. at 4). 25 Additionally, Plaintiff has not established subject-matter jurisdiction based on complete 26 diversity of the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interests 27 and costs. Plaintiff lists her address as Clovis, California. As to only three defendants, Plaintiff 28 provides street addresses, which the Court believes are meant to refer to locations in Fresno, California. For example, Plaintiff names as a defendant University Inn Hotel, and lists 1 “Shaw/First” as the street address. University Inn Hotel in Fresno, California is located at 2655 E. 2 Shaw Ave. Moreover, on the Civil Cover Sheet accompanying the complaint, Plaintiff has 3 checked boxes indicating that at least defendant is a citizen of California. (ECF No. 1-1). 4 Accordingly, the Court concludes that it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this 5 action. 6 C. Dismissal Without Leave to Amend 7 The Court further recommends dismissing this action without granting leave to amend. 8 Leave for a party to amend a complaint under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 9 Procedure “shall be freely given when justice so requires . . . and this policy is to be applied with 10 extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 11 1990) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 12 The Court concludes that granting Plaintiff leave to amend in this action would be futile in 13 light of Plaintiff’s extensive history of deficient filings and repeated admonitions from the Court. 14 Indeed, from a review of the Court’s electronic filing system it appears that, in 2024 alone, 15 Plaintiff has filed 17 cases in this District. Of these cases, 13 have either been dismissed or are 16 pending possible dismissal: 17 - Smith v. Novoa, No. 1:24-cv-00199-JLT-SKO (filed February 14, 2024; dismissed March 18 26, 2024, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and without further leave to amend); 19 - Smith v. Cordoza, No. 1:24-cv-00200-KES-BAM (filed February 14, 2024; dismissed 20 October 11, 2024, for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failure 21 to establish Court’s jurisdiction); 22 - Smith v. Planet Fitness, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00203-JLT-HBK (filed February 15, 2024; 23 dismissed August 2, 2024, for failure to comply with the Court’s orders and failure to 24 prosecute); 25 - Smith v. McDonalds Incorporated, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00204-KES-SAB (filed February 26 15, 2024; pending recommended dismissal, without further leave to amend, for failure to 27 comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failure to establish subject-matter 28 jurisdiction); - Smith v. Novoa, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00221-KES-HBK (filed February 21, 2024; pending 1 recommended dismissal, without further leave to amend, for being duplicative of filing 2 Smith v. Novoa, No. 1:24-cv-00199-JLT-SKO and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction); 3 - Smith v. Novoa, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00251-KES-EPG (filed February 29, 2024; dismissed 4 August 26, 2024, for failure to file a long form in forma pauperis application or pay filing 5 fee); 6 - Smith v. Davis, No. 1:24-cv-00476-JLT-EPG (filed April 22, 2024; pending recommended 7 dismissal without further leave to amend for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction); 8 - Smith v. West Coast Hotel Management, LLC, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00586-KES-HBK (filed 9 May 16, 2024; pending recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute) 10 - Smith v. Kemper Insurance, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00587-JLT-SKO (filed May 16, 2024; 11 pending recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 12 Court’s orders); 13 - Smith v. Farmers Insurance, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00588-KES-BAM (filed May 16, 2024; 14 pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and 15 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction); 16 - Smith v. Community Hospital, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00589-KES-BAM (filed May 16, 2024; 17 pending recommended dismissal for failure to comply with Court’s orders, lack of 18 subject-matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted); 19 - Smith v. Chick-Fil-A, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00814-JLT-BAM (filed July 15, 2024; pending 20 recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and 21 for failure to comply with Court’s orders); 22 - Smith v. Dyer, et al., No. 1:24-cv-01288-JLT-EPG (filed October 22, 2024; pending 23 recommended dismissal without leave to amend for failure to comply with Federal Rule of 24 Civil Procedure 8 and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction). 25 It thus appears that granting leave to amend in this action would be futile. Additionally, 26 the Court has concluded that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action, and it does not 27 appear that Plaintiff could cure this deficiency by submitting an amended complaint. 28 1 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 The Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules 3 | of Civil Procedure, and the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. Further, the 4 | Court recommends that Plaintiff should not be granted leave to file an amended complaint in light 5 | of Plaintiff's extensive history with deficient filings in this District and the apparent futility of 6 | amendment. 7 Accordingly, it is ordered that the Clerk of Court direct a District Judge to this case. 8 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 9 1. This action be dismissed, without prejudice and without leave to amend, for failure to 10 comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and lack of subject-matter 11 jurisdiction. 12 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 14 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 15 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 16 objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate M7 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages, 18 including exhibits. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 23 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: _ December 13, 2024 [sl heey

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27 28