Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aunty's Market China Town Hawaii LLC. v. Clans

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

February 11, 2019

AUNTY'S MARKET CHINA TOWN HAWAII LLC. HI, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
AMOGUIS CLANS, et al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AND DENY AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          ROM A. TRADER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the Court is pro se Plaintiffs Aunty's Market China Town Hawaii LLC. HI, Janet Howell ("Plaintiff Howell") and Leticia Tamayo's (collectively "Plaintiffs") Complaint titled:

Complain of Criminal Action: FAMILY ALIENATORS FRAUD MILITARY DEPENDENTS, CLAIMING TO BE GIRLFRIENDS, SEX OFFENDERS TO CHARGE THE GENIUS CRIMINALS WHO UNDERMINED SEDUCTOR, SEDUCTRESES, TERRORIZERS MULTIPLE IDENTITY THEFT FAMILIES, FAMILY ALIENATORS THEFT FAMILIES, FRAUD MILITARY DEPENDENTS CLAIMING TO BE Girlfriends, boyfriends, Beneficial Friends, Co-workers, Relatives Cousins et all. RELATIVES COUSINS ET ALL COMPLAIN OF: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE INTENTIONAL MANSLAUGHTER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER CAUSE BY RELATIONAL ATTEMPTED MURDER CAUSE BY BULLIES, FAMILY ALIENATORS PROVOKERS, DUE TO THEIR CRAB MENTALITIES, GOLD DIGGERS OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, FRAUD DEPENDENTS HOME WRECKERS, FRAUD DEPENDENTS, GENIUS CRIMINALS, THIEVES, OBSTRUCTING OUR BUSINESS GROWTH HOMESIDE, BULLIES, INTENTIONAL MANSLAUGHTER, ATTEMPTED MURDER, GROWTH BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF PEACE, BLOOD SUCKERS, FORGERS, LYBEL FABRICATORS, SLANDERERS, ETC.

("Complaint") filed on January 18, 2019, and Plaintiff Howell's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("Application"), also filed on January 18, 2019.

         After carefully reviewing the Complaint, Application and records, the Court finds and recommends that the Complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Complaint fails to identify the Court's jurisdictional basis and fails to state a claim. If the District Court dismisses the Complaint, the Application should be DENIED as moot.

         Further, on January 25, 2019, Plaintiff Howell filed two motions: "MOTION/ACTION: REQUEST FOR LEAVE ABSENCE FR FEB. 1 - APR. 8, 2019" and "REQUEST TO: Cancel this March 18, 2019 Hearing Date Please or Please Do Not Set the Hearing Date Yet."[1] These motions/requests should be terminated upon dismissal of the Complaint and denial of the Application.

         DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff Howell seeks the Court's approval to proceed in forma pauperis. A court may authorize the commencement or prosecution of any suit, action or proceeding without prepayment of fees by a person who submits an affidavit that the person is unable to pay such fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, if a Complaint fails to indicate a jurisdictional basis or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, the Court may deny the Application. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (citing Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112-13 (1936)); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

         I. The Complaint Fails to State Grounds for Jurisdiction

         At the outset, the Complaint has not identified a jurisdictional basis for this case. A pleading must contain "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction . . ." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). Federal district courts have jurisdiction when the action involves a federal question or diversity jurisdiction exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 285 U.S.C. § 1332. "The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the 'well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the Plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (citing Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112-13 (1936)). "The party seeking to invoke the district court's diversity jurisdiction always bears the burden of . . . pleading . . . diversity jurisdiction." NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 614-15 (9th Cir. 2016). "If jurisdiction is lacking at the outset, the district court has 'no power to do anything with the case except dismiss.'" Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).

         On its face, the Complaint does not state whether the federal district court has jurisdiction under federal question, and no reference is made to whether diversity jurisdiction exists. Without a proper jurisdictional basis, the Complaint must be dismissed. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) ("when a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety").

         II. The Complaint Fails to State a Claim

         Plaintiffs' Complaint consists of incoherent, nonsensical statements that do not state any discernable claims. A court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset and dismiss the complaint if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is "frivolous," "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted[ ] or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (emphasis added). See Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987); Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998).

         Even if Plaintiffs' Complaint is construed liberally as required by Bernhardt v. Los Angeles, the Complaint is incomprehensible. Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") requires that pleadings contain "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.