Podems v. University of Alaska Anchorage

Filing 5

DISMISSAL ORDER. (CC: DQA) (Jan, Chambers Staff)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ANDREW MICHAEL PODEMS,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00194-RRB
Plaintiff,
DISMISSAL ORDER
vs.
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, et al.,
Defendants.

Andrew Michael Podems, a resident of Newton, New Jersey, appearing pro se, filed
a complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the University of Alaska,
Anchorage (“UAA”) and three individuals employed by UAA.1
I.

GRAVAMEN OF COMPLAINT
Podems Complaint arises out of his enrollment as a student in UAA. According to

Podems he had been unlawfully denied a copy of his college transcript because he refused
to pay a tuition bill he claims was not due. According to Podems UAA refused to grant him
a fair hearing prior to initiating collection action through Cornerstone Credit Services.
Podems further alleges that he was forced to pay the bill in order to receive a copy of his
transcript, which was necessary for him to obtain his teaching certification.

1

In addition to the University, Podems names as Defendants: Mike O’Brien, Lawyer
at UAA, Stuart Roberts, Associate Vice Chancellor, UAA; and Barbara Farmer, Accounts
Receivable Collections Officer. In addition, Podems appears to name Cornerstone Credit
Services, LLC
DISMISSAL ORDER
Podems v. Univ. of Alaska, 3:16-cv-00194-RRB - 1

Podems seeks actual damages in the amount of $1,600,000, and punitive damages
in the amount of 2,000,000.
II.

DISCUSSION
The payment of a filing fee or any portion thereof not withstanding, this Court is

required to dismiss a case at any time that the Court determines that the Complaint “fails
to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”2 As presently constituted, Podems’
Complaint is deficient.
In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court looks to the pleading
standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.”3 “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual
allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.”4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), including the rule that complaints
filed by pro se plaintiffs are to be liberally construed, according plaintiff the benefit of any
doubt, and dismissal should be granted only where it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can plead no facts in support of his claim that would entitle him or her to relief.5

2

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see Sparling v. Hoffman Const. Co., 864 F.2d 635,
638 (9th Cir. 1988); see generally 5B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Mary Kay
Kane, Richard L. Marcus, Adam N. Steinman Federal Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1357 (3d ed.).
3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

4

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)).
5

Wilhelm v. Rotham, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012).

DISMISSAL ORDER
Podems v. Univ. of Alaska, 3:16-cv-00194-RRB - 2

This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible
claim for relief.6 “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a
defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
entitlement to relief.’”7 Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations
contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true.8
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.”9
This action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial
officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity,
injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated
or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any
Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Normally the Court would apply this section to this matter. However, in this particular
case, it is apparent from the Complaint and the matters of which the Court may take
judicial notice, that Podems is not entitled to relief in this Court under two principles:
subject-matter jurisdiction and the doctrine of res judicata.
6

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79; see Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969
(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting and applying Iqbal and Twombly).
7

Iqbal 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

8

Id.

9

Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

DISMISSAL ORDER
Podems v. Univ. of Alaska, 3:16-cv-00194-RRB - 3

A court always has a duty to examine its own subject-matter jurisdiction.10 Under the
doctrine of res judicata, this Court is precluded from re-examining an issue that has already
been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. 11
Subject Matter Jurisdiction. In his Complaint Podems refers to an action brought by
Cornerstone against him in the Alaska Small Claims Court.12 A review of the docket in that
case indicates that judgment was entered in favor of Cornerstone in the amount of
$1,039.27 on May 7, 2010, which was satisfied on February 2, 2012. The record further
reflects that Podems appealed to the Alaska Superior Court from that judgment, and the
Superior Court affirmed it on July 8, 2011.13 The Alaska Supreme Court denied Podems’
petition for review on June 4, 2012. 14
It is thus clearly apparent that Podems fully litigated the issue of his obligation to pay
the tuition in the appropriate state courts. If he was dissatisfied with that decision, Podems’
remedy was to seek a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court. It has long been the law
under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine that a Federal district court does not have appellate
jurisdiction over decisions of state courts.15 This rule applies even when the challenge to

10

FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 230–31 (1990).

11

Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001).

12

Cornerstone Credit Services LLC v. Podems, Case No. 3PA-09-0377SC. The
Court takes judicial notice of the records in that case. Fed. R. Evid. 201. That record is
available online at: http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/eservices/search.
13

Podems v. Cornerstone Credit Services. LLC, Case No. 3PA-10-01821CI.

14

Podems v. Cornerstone Credit Services, LLC, Case No S14492.

15

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482–86 (1983);
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 460 U.S. 413, 415–16 (1923).
DISMISSAL ORDER
Podems v. Univ. of Alaska, 3:16-cv-00194-RRB - 4

the state court’s actions involve federal constitutional issues.16 In this case, in order to find
in favor of Podems, this Court would have to essentially overrule the decisions of the
Alaska State Court System. A result that is clearly outside this Court’s jurisdiction.
Diversity Jurisdiction. Even if it were not barred from hearing this matter under
Rooker-Feldman, it also lacks diversity jurisdiction. Although it appears from the face of the
Complaint that there is complete diversity between Podems and all Defendants, standing
alone, that is insufficient. In order for this Court to exercise its diversity jurisdiction the
amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.17 In this case, as noted above, Podems
seeks actual damages of $1,600,000 and punitive damages of $2,000,000. Normally, for
the purposes of determining jurisdiction, the amount in controversy “is determined from the
face of the pleadings” and controls “unless upon the face of the complaint, it is obvious
that the suit cannot involve the necessary amount.”18 According to the Complaint and
exhibits attached thereto the amount that Podems was required to pay was $1,354.00. It
is obvious from the face of the Complaint that Podems cannot plausibly claim damages
anywhere near the floor for establishing diversity jurisdiction.
Merits/Res Judicata. Even if this Court had jurisdiction, Podems’ action would fail.
The gravamen of Podems’ Complaint is that he was denied a hearing on his obligation to
pay the fees claimed to be unpaid. Unfortunately for Podems’ this claim is eviscerated by

16

Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court of State of Calif. for Cty of Los Angeles, 23
F.3d 218, 221 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Feldman, 460 U.S. at 484–86).
17

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

18

Graphic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhokta, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir.
2010) (quoting St Paul Mercury Indemn. Co. v. Red Cab Co. 303 U.S. 283, 292 (1938)
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
DISMISSAL ORDER
Podems v. Univ. of Alaska, 3:16-cv-00194-RRB - 5

the documentation attached to his Complaint. Attached to the Complaint are two
documents: a letter dated May 12, 2008, notifying Podems of a right to request a hearing;19
and a letter dated July 1, 2008, notifying Podems that it was not possible to conduct a
hearing in the time specified and that garnishment of his Alaska PFD was terminated. That
letter included the following paragraph: “Your account is still reflecting an amount due. If
you still wish to meet and discuss your account contact Barbara Farmer at [phone]
to schedule an appointment. Please make this appointment before August 1, 2008.” 20
It clearly appears that Podems was provided an opportunity to present his grievance
to the University: an opportunity he may have declined. It also appears clear that Podems
raised this claim in the Alaska State Courts and was denied relief. Thus, Podems’
Complaint not only fails on the facts, but, as noted above, he has been accorded an
opportunity to fully litigate his claims in the Alaska Court System.
As presently constituted, because the Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to
warrant invoking the jurisdiction of this Court or granting the relief requested, or any relief
at all, it must be dismissed. Although normally the Court would grant Podems leave to
amend, because the Complaint is verified under penalty of perjury it is evident that Podems
cannot truthfully allege facts sufficient to warrant invoking the jurisdiction of this Court,
dismissal will be without leave to amend.

19

Docket 1-1, p. 2.

20

Docket 1-1. This attachment also bears a sticker identifying it as Defendant
Exhibit D in Case No. 3PA-09-337SC.
DISMISSAL ORDER
Podems v. Univ. of Alaska, 3:16-cv-00194-RRB - 6

III.

ORDER
Accordingly, the Complaint Under The Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Non-

Prisoners) filed herein is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to seeking appropriate relief
in the Alaska State Courts, if any.
The Clerk of the Court to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of November, 2016.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DISMISSAL ORDER
Podems v. Univ. of Alaska, 3:16-cv-00194-RRB - 7