Bridgewater v. Fuller, 2:23-cv-00961

Pro se plaintiff Keywanie Bridgewater was granted in forma pauperis status and filed a handwritten complaint against Raymond E. Fuller, whom she identifies as a family member, hairdresser, and ex-husband.
Bridgewater asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens, alleging violations relating to "rights to divorce and separation," domestic violence, and a restraining order.
The Magistrate Judge recommended screening the IFP complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) before issuing summons.
The district court found the complaint failed to allege any specific constitutional violation or facts showing Fuller acted under color of state or federal law.
The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B) but granted Bridgewater 30 days to file an amended complaint curing the defects.
The court warned that domestic-relations matters are generally matters for state court and reminded Bridgewater that an amended complaint replaces the original pleading; failure to timely amend will result in dismissal with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint states a claim under § 1983	Bridgewater alleges constitutional claims re: divorce/separation and domestic-violence-related harms	Fuller is a private individual; no allegation he acted under color of state law	Dismissed: complaint fails to allege a constitutional violation or color-of-law conduct
Whether a Bivens claim is alleged against a federal actor	Bridgewater asserts Bivens-type claim for rights to divorce/separation	No facts show Fuller is a federal employee or acted under federal authority	Dismissed: no allegation Fuller acted under color of federal law
Whether the court has federal-question or diversity jurisdiction	Plaintiff invokes federal statutes and constitutional rights	Facts indicate domestic-relations/state-law issues that do not present a federal question; no diversity/amount alleged	Court cautioned limited federal jurisdiction; domestic relations belong to state courts
Procedural question: dismissal with or without leave to amend	N/A (plaintiff pro se)	N/A (court evaluates under Ninth Circuit law)	Court dismissed without prejudice and granted 30 days to amend; warned failure to amend will lead to dismissal with prejudice

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915(e) screening applies to all IFP complaints)
Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005) (definition of frivolous suits under § 1915)
Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2010) (12(b)(6) dismissal can rest on legal theory or insufficient facts)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plaintiff must plead each government-official defendant’s individual unconstitutional actions)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418 (9th Cir. 1991) (elements of a § 1983 claim)
Morgan v. United States, 323 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2003) (Bivens claim requires federal-actor conduct)
Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793 (2022) (limits on Bivens actions)
Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2012) (pro se complaints should be given leave to amend unless amendment is futile)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743 (2019) (limitations on federal jurisdiction)
Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (1979) (domestic relations generally governed by state law)
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (amended complaint operates as complete substitute for original)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (Bivens provides limited cause of action against federal officers for constitutional violations)