Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Camarena-Revis v. Stoneberg

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division

September 19, 2019

JEANNE CAMARENA-REVIS, Plaintiff,
v.
DONNA STONEBERG, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          ANN AIKEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff was rear-ended by defendant Donna Stoneberg. She alleges that she was injured in the collision.

         This is 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.

         After 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.

         Now, 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         STANDARDS

         When a 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 true. Id.

         Pro 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 cured. Id.

         DISCUSSION

         Once 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.

         Plaintiff 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. ยง 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.