Kinnard v. Navarro
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-02534
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Kinnard v. Navarro, Judge White dismissed Kinnard’s amended complaint without leave to amend and denied his motion to continue as moot.
Kenneth Kinnard’s action was dismissed without leave to amend; the defendants were no longer required to respond in this case, and the case-management conference was not continued.
What happened
In Kinnard v. Navarro, Kenneth Kinnard alleged that numerous defendants committed fraud and conspired to ruin his business between 1996 and 2002. He sought damages and asked the court to overturn judgments from two California state-court proceedings and two federal-court proceedings.
The court found that Kinnard still did not show a basis for federal jurisdiction, provide enough facts to support his fraud and conspiracy allegations, or overcome the time limit for bringing his claims. The court concluded that further amendment would not fix these problems.
Judge Jeffrey White dismissed the amended complaint without leave to amend. The court also denied Kinnard’s motion to continue the case-management conference as moot, ordered a separate judgment, and directed the clerk to close the file.
The detailed version
- Kinnard v. Navarro · No. 4:22-cv-02534
- Jeffrey White
- July 12, 2022
Background
Kenneth Kinnard alleged that he owned P&K Trucking, a family business started in Texas. He claimed that numerous defendants committed fraud and conspired to ruin the business between 1996 and 2002. The alleged misconduct involved four earlier judicial proceedings: two in California state court and two in federal court. Kinnard sought damages and asked the court to overturn the judgments in those proceedings.
The court had previously allowed Kinnard to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed his original complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), while allowing him to amend. Kinnard filed an amended complaint.
Analysis
The court explained that it must dismiss an action filed without paying the filing fee in certain circumstances, including when the complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief.
The court identified several continuing defects:
- Federal jurisdiction: Kinnard asserted federal-question jurisdiction and referred to federal statutes, but he did not identify which federal rights were violated, who violated them, or what harm resulted. The court held that this bare assertion did not establish federal-question jurisdiction. The court also stated that, to the extent Kinnard intended to rely on diversity jurisdiction, he had not alleged facts establishing the required citizenship and amount in controversy. - Insufficient factual allegations: Kinnard accused attorneys and parties in the earlier lawsuits of fraud and conspiracy, but the amended complaint did not provide plausible factual support. Labels and conclusions were not enough to state a plausible claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). - Untimeliness: The allegations concerned events from 1996 through 2002, and Kinnard did not allege conduct occurring after 2002. The court therefore held that the claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation.
The court concluded that further amendment would be futile because Kinnard had already received an opportunity to amend and the claims were time-barred.
Disposition
The court DISMISSED Kinnard’s action WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Judge Jeffrey White also DENIED Kinnard’s motion to continue the case-management conference as moot. The court ordered that a separate judgment issue and that the clerk close the file.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.