Minichino v. Gutierrez

Background

Marie Minichino, who is representing herself, applied to proceed without paying the filing fee, and the court granted that application. The court then screened her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires review of a complaint filed by a person allowed to proceed without paying fees.

Minichino alleges that Ruben Gutierrez stole her collection of foreign bonds and foreign currency, which she values at five million dollars, and moved the property to his residence in Oakland, California. She alleges that she lives in Florida. Her complaint includes an itemized list of the bonds and currency and their purchase prices, which the court said appear to exceed $75,000 in total. She also alleges that the bonds have matured and that buyers are currently interested in them. Minichino named Cyrus Crafft as a second defendant and alleged that Crafft resides at the same address as Gutierrez, but she alleged no facts about Crafft.

The complaint identified claims under the Elder Justice Act and the Senior Safe Act and asserted federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. In its discussion, however, the court described the claims as arising under the Elder Abuse and Extortion Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3058i, and the Elder Justice Act of 2009, 42 U.S.C. § 1397j.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that screening under § 1915(e)(2)(B) requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. It also discussed Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Because Minichino is representing herself, the court said it must read her complaint liberally and ordinarily give her an opportunity to amend unless the defects cannot be fixed.

The court concluded that neither of the two statutes it analyzed creates a private right of action. A private right of action is a legal right for an individual to sue under a statute. For that reason, the court concluded that Minichino had not stated any viable federal claim. The court found that she had colorably alleged diversity jurisdiction, but the opinion’s footnote explaining that finding is incomplete in the provided text.

Order

The court ordered Minichino to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. By January 7, 2026, she may file either an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies or a response explaining why the existing complaint is sufficient. The court vacated the February 4, 2026 Case Management Conference.

The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It stated that if Minichino does not respond by the deadline, the case will be reassigned to a United States district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B). The order also specified requirements for any amended complaint, including using the case caption and number and placing the words “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page.