United States District Court, D. Hawaii
AUNTY'S MARKET CHINA TOWN HAWAII LLC. HI, et al., Plaintiffs,
AMOGUIS CLANS, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
AND DENY AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
TRADER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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,
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.
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." These motions/requests should be
terminated upon dismissal of the Complaint and denial of the
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).
The Complaint Fails to State Grounds for
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).
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").
The Complaint Fails to State a Claim
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
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