United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division
OPINION AND ORDER
AIKEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jeanne Camarena-Revis seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis ("IFP") in this action. (Doc. 28).
For the reasons set forth below, the Second Amended Complaint
(doc. 26) is DISMISSED with prejudice, plaintiffs Motion for
Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel (doc. 24) is DENIED, and
plaintiffs IFP petition (doc. 28) is GRANTED.
was rear-ended by defendant Donna Stoneberg. She alleges that
she was injured in the collision.
plaintiffs third complaint in this case. Plaintiff initially
filed this action against Farmers Insurance on January 23,
2019, along with an IFP petition. She alleged that Farmers
was liable for the payment of her medical bills related to
the accident. On March 28, 2019, the Court dismissed the
Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court
also ordered a limited term appointment of pro bono counsel,
not to exceed three hours in length, for the purpose of
reviewing the case with plaintiff and discussing her options
for how to proceed.
meeting with pro bono counsel, plaintiff filed her Amended
Complaint, which added defendants Donna Stoneberg and Jodi
Karrick and alleged that all three defendants were liable for
payment of her medical bills. On June 11, 2019, the Court
dismissed the Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The Court also denied plaintiffs IFP petition
with leave to refile because it was incomplete.
plaintiff has filed a Second Amended Complaint and amended
IFP petition. In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff
incorporates her prior complaints by reference, but asserts
claims against Donna Stoneberg only. Farmers Insurance and
Karrick are no longer defendants in this case.
specifically alleges that Stoneberg committed a tort against
plaintiff when she rear-ended her and caused damage to
plaintiffs car and physical injury to plaintiff. Plaintiff
alleges that Farmers paid some of her medical bills, but not
all, alleging unpaid bills for acupuncture and physical
therapy. She seeks "750, 000, 00 [sic]
dollars" in damages. Sec. Am. Compl.
plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP, district courts have the
power under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen
complaints even before service of the complaint on defendants
and must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim.
Courts apply the same standard under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) as when addressing a motion to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v.
Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive
a motion to dismiss under the federal pleading standards, the
complaint must include a short and plain statement of the
claim and "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to 'state a claim for relief that is plausible
on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v, Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The court is not required to
accept legal conclusions, unsupported by alleged facts, as
se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than
pleadings by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21 (1972). The court should construe pleadings by
pro se plaintiffs liberally and afford the
plaintiffs the benefit of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los
Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.
1988). A pro se litigant is also entitled to notice
of the deficiencies in the complaint and the opportunity to
amend, unless the complaint's deficiencies cannot be
again, plaintiff has not established that this Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Federal subject
matter jurisdiction may be based upon the presence of a
federal question or on diversity of citizenship.
asserts that this Court has federal question jurisdiction
over her claims. However, the Second Amended Complaint
asserts tort claims, which, as this Court has previously
explained to plaintiff, are a matter of state law and cannot
give rise to federal question jurisdiction. See 28
U.S.C. § 1331 (requirements for federal question
jurisdiction). Plaintiff asserts that the claims arise under
federal law because the federal Department of Transportation
issues "DMV Study Guides for people to follow and obey
traffic laws." Sec. Amend. Compl. Even assuming that
allegation is true, DMV study guides ...