McCray v. Banks

Background

Jamilah-Monique McCray, appearing without a lawyer, filed a form complaint naming Tammie Banks as the sole defendant. The complaint described Banks as “acting as deputy clerk,” and attachments referred to Banks as a deputy clerk of the Alameda Superior Court. McCray alleged that Banks owed her $131,000. The complaint referred to notices concerning a “self-executing contract,” but it did not select or identify a specific basis for the alleged debt from the form’s listed options.

McCray’s complaint was labeled as asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint listed both McCray and Banks as having California addresses. McCray also did not identify a claim under a federal statute or the United States Constitution.

Screening standards

Because McCray had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute 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 that relief. The court also discussed the requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 that a complaint provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief, and the Rule 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.

The court noted that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally and that the plaintiff ordinarily must be given an opportunity to amend unless the defects cannot be cured.

Court’s analysis

The court first addressed subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. It explained that diversity jurisdiction requires every plaintiff to be a citizen of a different state from every defendant, along with at least $75,000 in controversy. Because the complaint listed both parties as having California addresses, the court stated that diversity jurisdiction was not adequately alleged. The court also stated that McCray had not asserted a federal-law or constitutional claim that would create federal-question jurisdiction.

The court separately concluded that McCray had not alleged facts or legal theories indicating a plausible claim against Banks. It further stated that, to the extent Banks was sued in her capacity as a deputy clerk of the Alameda Superior Court, she was likely protected by judicial immunity. The court explained that court personnel are generally protected from damages liability for acts performed in their official capacities, subject to exceptions when an official acts in the clear absence of jurisdiction or performs a nonjudicial act. The court found that McCray had alleged no facts suggesting that an exception applied.

Order

Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero ordered McCray to show cause by July 22, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction and, even if jurisdiction existed, for the deficiencies discussed in the order. McCray could respond to the order or file an amended complaint. The court stated that failure to respond would lead to reassignment to a district judge with a recommendation that the case be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B). The order itself did not dismiss the case.