Barnes v. Barnes

District Court, S.D. California · 3:24-cv-00718 · 2024-12-04 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Linda Lopez (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:18Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a pro se complaint that failed to state a jurisdictional basis, proper venue, or a plausible claim for relief. The court dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint by December 30, 2024.

What the court decided	The model
Complaint dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue, with leave to amend. “Accordingly, the Complaint is DISMISSED. If Plaintiff Barnes believes she can correct the defects this order has identified, she must file an amended complaint. She must do so no later than December 30, 2024 or the IFP motion and the Request for Appointment of Counsel will be denied as moot and this action will be dismissed without leave to amend.”	agree with court The court correctly identified that the complaint failed to invoke federal jurisdiction under Rule 8(a)(1) and failed to establish venue. Dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is the proper remedy when jurisdiction is not invoked. Granting leave to amend is consistent with the liberal construction afforded to pro se litigants, although the court's failure to specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice in the operative line (relying on the conditional language in the next sentence) is slightly imprecise, the intent to allow amendment is clear.
Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and Request for Appointment of Counsel declined to be ruled upon at this time. “The Court declines to rule on the IFP Motion and the Request for Appointment of Counsel at this time because it is clear the Complaint must be dismissed.”	agree with court The court deferred ruling on these motions pending the outcome of the complaint. This is a procedural decision to avoid unnecessary work if the case is dismissed. It is a reasonable exercise of discretion.

What the court decided

The model

Complaint dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue, with leave to amend.

“Accordingly, the Complaint is DISMISSED. If Plaintiff Barnes believes she can correct the defects this order has identified, she must file an amended complaint. She must do so no later than December 30, 2024 or the IFP motion and the Request for Appointment of Counsel will be denied as moot and this action will be dismissed without leave to amend.”

agree with court
The court correctly identified that the complaint failed to invoke federal jurisdiction under Rule 8(a)(1) and failed to establish venue. Dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is the proper remedy when jurisdiction is not invoked. Granting leave to amend is consistent with the liberal construction afforded to pro se litigants, although the court's failure to specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice in the operative line (relying on the conditional language in the next sentence) is slightly imprecise, the intent to allow amendment is clear.

Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and Request for Appointment of Counsel declined to be ruled upon at this time.

“The Court declines to rule on the IFP Motion and the Request for Appointment of Counsel at this time because it is clear the Complaint must be dismissed.”

agree with court
The court deferred ruling on these motions pending the outcome of the complaint. This is a procedural decision to avoid unnecessary work if the case is dismissed. It is a reasonable exercise of discretion.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the legal standards for jurisdiction, venue, and pleading sufficiency. It cites the appropriate Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authorities. The reasoning is sound, though the order contains several typos (e.g., 'Asheraft' instead of 'Ashcroft', 'stak' instead of 'stake') and grammatical errors ('does not allege enough factual matter if accepted as true, would state a claim...'). These do not affect the legal correctness of the decision.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

possible bias possible bias

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARENE BARNES, Case No.: 24cv718-LL-MMP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 13 vs. 14 BIANCA R. BARNES, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Darene Barnes, pro se, filed a short Complaint along with a Motion to 18 Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), and a Request for Appointment of Counsel. ECF Nos. 19 1-3. The Court declines to rule on the IFP Motion and the Request for Appointment of 20 Counsel at this time because it is clear the Complaint must be dismissed. 21 The Complaint states that the relief requested is “I will like my house back.” ECF 22 No. 1 at 1. In support thereof, the Complaint includes one paragraph, but it is mostly 23 illegible and made up of fragmented sentences such as “Lynnell Barnes had a stak on him. 24 Die. Pop Store Pop work away Seattle Police Pop Lynnell Down and Be in Seattle Police. 25 Eye open to hour diff. Derick C. Barnes problem child. Bianca Pop house Down. . . .” Id. 26 at 3. The Complaint does not include the “short and plain statement of the grounds for the 27 court’s jurisdiction” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 8(a)(1). The Complaint also fails to invoke 28 the Court’s jurisdiction in any other way. It must be dismissed for that reason. See 1 || Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (federal courts’ 2 jurisdiction is presumed to be lacking, until the party asserting jurisdiction demonstrates 3 || otherwise). Furthermore, it does not allege that Defendant lives in this District, or that 4 ||anything giving rise to Plaintiff Barnes’ claims occurred here, or that venue is proper in 5 District for any other reason. The Complaint is dismissed for that reason as well. See 6 || Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). 7 Even if the Complaint was not being dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 8 improper venue, it does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) or (3). Further, even 9 Plaintiff Barnes was granted leave to proceed IFP, the Complaint would not survive 10 || mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). It does not allege enough factual matter 11 if accepted as true, would state a claim to relief that it plausible on its face. See 12 || Asheraft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 13 Accordingly, the Complaint is DISMISSED. If Plaintiff Barnes believes she can 14 |! correct the defects this order has identified, she must file an amended complaint. She must 13 || do so no later than December 30, 2024 or the IFP motion and the Request for Appointment 16 || of Counsel will be denied as moot and this action will be dismissed without leave to amend. V7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 6 Dated: December 4, 2024 KO FF | 20 Honorable Linda Lopez 71 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 □□