Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Luther Amos filed this action on March 27, 2026, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleging extortion and fraud against Nataly Zamora and others. The court screened his original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and found it failed to state a claim and failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The court noted the complaint contained no clearly delineated claims or causes of action and that any fraud allegations needed to satisfy Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement. The court granted leave to amend and instructed Amos to address the deficiencies identified in the screening order.
Amos then filed a first amended complaint, which became the subject of a second round of screening. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan under Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) because Amos was proceeding pro se. The magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations on November 2, 2026, recommending dismissal without further leave to amend.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that the first amended complaint did not cure the deficiencies identified in the prior screening order. The first five pages were a form complaint, followed by eleven pages of handwritten factual allegations that were difficult to read and not set forth in numbered paragraphs. There were no clearly delineated claims or causes of action, and nearly twenty pages of exhibits were attached with unclear relevance. The court concluded the amended complaint failed to comply with Rule 8's requirement of a short and plain statement of the claim.
The court also found no clear basis for federal jurisdiction. Amos cited approximately ten federal criminal statutes in his jurisdictional section, but those statutes do not provide a basis for civil liability or subject-matter jurisdiction, and there is generally no private right of action to enforce federal criminal statutes. Diversity jurisdiction was also unclear because the parties' citizenship was not clearly pled and all listed addresses were in California. Additionally, the court observed that the factual allegations dated from December 2020 through July 2022, all more than three years before filing, meaning the claims may be time-barred under California's three-year statute of limitations for fraud and two-year statute for injury claims.
On the question of leave to amend, the magistrate judge considered Amos's pro se status but concluded that because the court had already granted one opportunity to amend and Amos had not complied with the prior order, further amendment would be futile. The court recommended that the first amended complaint and the action be dismissed without further leave to amend and that the Clerk be directed to enter judgment and close the file.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se plaintiff's amended complaint that fails to follow a court's specific instructions on pleading deficiencies can support a finding that further leave to amend would be futile.
- Citing federal criminal statutes does not establish subject-matter jurisdiction or a private right of action in a civil case.
- Courts screening complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) will examine whether factual allegations appear time-barred under applicable statutes of limitations even when the plaintiff has not clearly identified the causes of action.
- A complaint that combines a form pleading with handwritten, unnumbered allegations and unclear exhibits may fail Rule 8's short-and-plain-statement requirement.
- Parties who wish to object to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations must do so within fourteen days or risk waiving the right to appeal.
Why It Matters
This recommendation illustrates how federal courts handle repeat screening of pro se complaints under § 1915(e). Even with the solicitude ordinarily afforded to pro se litigants, a court may conclude that amendment would be futile when the plaintiff has already been given specific guidance and failed to follow it. The decision also underscores that jurisdictional pleading must identify a valid basis for federal jurisdiction, and that string citations to criminal statutes are insufficient.
The findings and recommendations were submitted to the assigned district judge, and the parties were given fourteen days to file objections. The recommendation, if adopted, would result in dismissal of the action without further leave to amend and closure of the case.