Smith v. Cooley

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends dismissal of Candace Smith’s pro se action without prejudice and without leave to amend. The court concludes that the complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and does not establish subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also orders the Clerk to correct the plaintiff’s name on the docket from “Candice” to “Candace.”

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to comply with Rule 8(a) because it relied on conclusory statements, lacked supporting factual allegations, did not clearly identify the claims, and did not make clear what each defendant allegedly did.
2. The complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it alleged no facts or law supporting a federal claim.
3. The complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because it did not allege the citizenship of the parties, notwithstanding the alleged amount in controversy.
4. Leave to amend should be denied because amendment would be futile in light of Plaintiff's extensive history of deficient filings and the absence of an apparent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)'s requirement of a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.
2. Whether the complaint established federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
3. Whether the complaint established diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
4. Whether leave to amend should be denied as futile based on Plaintiff's repeated deficient filings and the absence of an apparent jurisdictional basis.

Disposition

dismissed