Marie Minichino v. Ruben Gutierrez, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order to show cause regarding dismissal of Marie Minichino’s pro se complaint. The court concluded that the Elder Abuse and Extortion Act and the Elder Justice Act do not provide a private right of action, and therefore the complaint did not state a viable federal claim. Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint or response by January 7, 2026, or the case would be reassigned with a recommendation for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Holdings

1. Neither the Elder Abuse and Extortion Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3058i, nor the Elder Justice Act of 2009, 42 U.S.C. § 1397j, provides a private right of action.
2. The complaint appeared not to plausibly state a claim and was subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), but the court deferred dismissal and ordered Plaintiff to show cause or amend.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim under the Elder Abuse and Extortion Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3058i, or the Elder Justice Act of 2009, 42 U.S.C. § 1397j.
2. Whether the complaint was subject to dismissal during in forma pauperis screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
3. Whether Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to amend or otherwise respond before dismissal.

Disposition

other