1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 QUOC H. NGUYEN, Case No. 2:24-cv-02528-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 TIEN TRAN, ECF No. 2 15 Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR 17 FAILURE TO ESTABLISH FEDERAL JURISDICTION 18 ECF No. 1 19 OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS 20 21 Plaintiff brings this action pro se, alleging that defendant’s dog bit his hand. ECF No. 1 at 22 5. The complaint fails to offer any basis for federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, I recommend that 23 this action be dismissed. I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF 24 No. 2. 25 Screening and Pleading Requirements 26 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 27 in forma pauperis. See

(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 28 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 1 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 2 relief.

3 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 5 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). The plausibility standard does not 6 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 8 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 9 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr.,

, 10 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 11 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc.,

, 1264 12 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 13 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404

, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 15 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 16 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr.,

(9th Cir. 2017). 17 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 18 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin.,

, 19 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents,

(9th Cir. 1982)). 20 Analysis 21 Plaintiff’s sole claim is that defendant’s dog bit his hand. ECF No. 1 at 5. This claim 22 does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction; it sounds in state tort law. And there is 23 no basis for diversity jurisdiction; plaintiff alleges that both he and the defendant are citizens of 24 California. Id. at 4. I see no reason to offer plaintiff leave to amend, since he could remedy these 25 deficiencies only by changing the fundamentals of his claim. If some basis for jurisdiction does 26 exist, plaintiff may state as much in his objections to these recommendations. 27 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 28 pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 1 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the complaint, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED without 2 | leave to amend for want of federal jurisdiction. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 5 || service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 6 || court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 7 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 8 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 9 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 10 | Turner v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 11 1991). 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ( ie — Dated: _ October 7, 2024 q———_ 15 JEREMY D. PETERSON 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28