Opinion
3:23-cv-00573-JR
06-07-2023
EUGENIA SONG, Plaintiff, v. U.S. GOVERNMENT, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
JOLIE A. RUSSO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se plaintiff Eugenia Song brings this action against defendants “U.S. Government” and “Bruce Oliver Newsome of San Diego County.” On April 24, 2023, plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted, however, the Clerk of the Court was instructed not to issue process until further order of the Court due to plaintiff's failure to state a plausible claim for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Between May 19 and 31, 2023, plaintiff lodged her amended complaint and a number of separately docketed supporting “Exhibits.”Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the district court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, either sua sponte or pursuant to a motion made by the opposing party, if it “is frivolous or malicious,” or “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). To avoid dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While the plaintiff need not detail all factual allegations, the complaint must nonetheless provide “more than labels and conclusions.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Thus, to state a plausible claim for relief, the complaint “must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts” to support its legal conclusions. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).
These “Exhibits” are as follows: (1) a list of entities (e.g., “San Diego Police Department” and “German Interpol”) and partially identified individuals (e.g., “England - Nigel” and “Scotland -John”) that allegedly have “access to military technology”; (2) a list of purported wrongdoers (i.e., “Roman Catholic Pope (at the ‘highest level'),” “Commander in Chief in Washington,” “Dr. Coleman,” “Robert Henkel of Ascension Health,” and “Bruce Newsome of the U.S. Army”) and “[t]he goals of this national program”; (4) a “summary” of plaintiff's “Related Cases in USDC for Oregon”; (5) a list of plaintiff's past employers and residences; (6) records requests to the “National Security Division, Department of Justice” and “U.S. National Central Bureau - Interpol” concerning “Bruce Oliver Newsome” and “Project Gorgeous which was designed by Dr. Newsome”; and (7) documents from plaintiff's other cases, from both within and outside this District. Pl.'s Exhibits (docs. 10-11, 14, 16-18, 20, 22).
Pro se plaintiffs do not have the benefit of legal counsel, therefore their pleadings are “held to less stringent standards” than pleadings drafted by lawyers. Florer v. Congregation PidyonShevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d 916, 923 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011). Even construing plaintiff's pleadings in the most favorable and liberal light, her amended complaint is dismissed for three reasons.
First, plaintiff's amended complaint suffers from the same defects as her initial complaint. That is, her claims are vague and contain no underlying facts. In particular, the entirety of plaintiff's allegations state:
The name of the original program was called “Project Georgeous” [sic] from Navy Base (NB) Coronado in San Diego County. It was designed by Bruce Oliver Newsome around March 2017.
There are approximately six hundred “family CIAs” in existence in the country today, and most are located in the South. My version of a personal CIA has been awful.
[My prayer for relief is to be] out of this program, and haven't a clue why I am here in the first place.Am. Compl. (doc. 12).
The only other factual information occurs in one of plaintiff's “Exhibits” and states: “Plaintiff contacted the investigative agency, or the FBI, in Portland Oregon by phone to report a crime on May 10, 2023 at 2:30 pm CT and the call was received by operator #55953. The subject of the crime was Bruce Newsome of Dallas County, Texas.” Pl.'s Exhibits (doc. 22-1). Accordingly, it remains entirely unclear from plaintiff's factual assertions how and when each defendant caused her harm. SeeMcHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1176-78 (9th Cir. 1996) (each averment of a pleading must be simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is liable for which wrong).
Second, to the extent the amended complaint can be construed as alleging a FOIA claim, plaintiff cannot proceed against the named defendants. As previously explained, “FOIA is designed to inform the public about agency action, not to benefit private litigants,” such that claims cannot be maintained against private individuals or “the entire ‘Government of the United States.'” Order 3 (doc. 4) (quoting Eames v. United States, 2014 WL 4803160, *6 (D. Utah Sept. 26, 2014)).
Third, the amended complaint fails to allege any connection to the State of Oregon. As described at length in regard to plaintiff's prior pleadings across her lawsuits, venue must be proper in order for a particular case to proceed in the selected forum. Sinochem Int l Co. v. Malaysia Int 'IShipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007). Venue is controlled by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which provides:
A civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
The district court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought” if the case is filed in the wrong venue. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see also Alt.Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 5556 (2019) (if the action does not fall within one of the three categories of § 1391(b), “venue is improper, and the case must be dismissed or transferred under § 1406(a)”).
Although the Court previously identified these deficiencies, plaintiff has not attempted to cure them via her amended complaint, which is wholly silent as to where (and when) the underlying events occurred. Moreover, plaintiff's “Exhibits” make clear that she has never resided in Oregon, sought education from an Oregon-based institution, or performed work for an Oregonbased company, and the only individually named defendant resides in California. See Pl.'s Exhibits (docs. 17-18) (listing plaintiff's residences, educational institutions, and employers and their locations from 2000 through 2022); see also Pl.'s Notice of Change of Address (doc. 15) (plaintiff requesting electronic correspondences in lieu of paper copies, as the designated address in Fort Worth, Texas, is “her school” which “has a limited mailroom operation[s]” during the summer).
In sum, due to the dearth of well-plead facts, it is impossible for the Court to reasonably infer that plaintiff's claims are plausible and fall within the statute of limitations, or that venue in this District is proper.
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's amended complaint (doc. 12) and associated “Exhibits” should be dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall not issue process until further order of this Court. Plaintiff is allowed 30 days from the date of the District Judge's order to file a complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Findings and Recommendation. Failure to file an amended complaint as ordered will result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment or appealable order. The parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the court. Thereafter, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any factual determination of the Magistrate Judge will be considered as a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the factual issues and will constitute a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to this recommendation.