Jamali v. Maricopa, County of et al

Filing 47

ORDER Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1 ) is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before June 28, 2013, consistent with this order. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action without further order of the Court if Plaintiff fails to comply with this deadline. All pending motions (Docs. 8 , 10 , 14 , 15 , 28 , 43 , 44 , 46 ) are denied as moot. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/29/2013. (KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Imran Ahmad Jamali,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV13-613 PHX DGC

Maricopa County, a private municipal
corporation, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before the Court are the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Maricopa County
(“the County”)1 (Doc. 8), the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants James Richmond
and Richmond Consulting Group, LLC (Doc. 10), the motion to dismiss filed by
Defendant Kyle Ritter (Doc. 14), the motion for alternative service of process filed by
Plaintiff (Doc. 15), the motion to schedule a default hearing filed by Plaintiff
(Doc. 28), the motion for extension of time for service filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 43), and
the motion to compel answer filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 44). No party has requested oral
argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I.

Background.
Chandler police agents arrested Plaintiff on October 4, 2010. Doc. 1, ¶ 31. The

following day, the County took Plaintiff’s name, image, and other private information.
1

The Court will refer to the other Defendants collectively as “the Website
Defendants.”

1

Id., ¶ 32. The County distributed this information to the Website Defendants. Id.,

2

¶ 33. The Website Defendants posted the information to their webpages (id., ¶ 33),

3

and required payment to have the information removed (id., ¶ 35). The information

4

remains on the Internet even after an individual website removes the information from

5

its webpage. Id., ¶ 36.

6

The complaint asserts the following twelve causes of action: (1) invasion of

7

privacy by means of unauthorized appropriation of name or likeness; (2) invasion of

8

privacy by means of public disclosure of private facts; (3) invasion of privacy by false

9

light; (4) invasion of privacy by intrusion; (5) intentional infliction of emotional

10

distress; (6) gross negligence; (7) blackmail; (8) extortion; (9) civil conspiracy;

11

(10) defamation by slander; (11) conversion; and (12) unjust enrichment. Doc 1.2

12

II.

Dismissal of Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

13

The County moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

14

Doc. 8 at 4-6. The County argues that the complaint asserts only state law claims and

15

that there is no other basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Id.

16

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power

17

authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

18

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Pursuant to federal statutes, this Court has subject matter

19

jurisdiction over a case only if the complaint raises a federal question or the amount in

20

controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states.

21

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). “The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving

22

all jurisdictional facts.” Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th

23

Cir. 1990) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936));

24

see Fenton v. Freedman, 748 F.2d 1358, 1359, n.1 (9th Cir. 1984). Courts must presume

25

a lack of jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. To

26
27

2

See

The blackmail claim is asserted against the Website Defendants (Doc. 1, ¶ 72),
and the defamation by slander claim against Defendant “Doe 8” (id., ¶¶ 82-89). The
complaint asserts the other claims against all Defendants.

28
-2-

1

overcome that presumption, the plaintiff must provide a statement of the grounds for the

2

court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

3

Pro se Plaintiff asserts that the Court has federal question jurisdiction. Doc. 1, ¶

4

20 (“The complaint arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and

5

therefore this court has jurisdiction pursuant Tile 18 U.S.C. § 241, Title 28 U.S.C.

6

§ 1331 and Article II, sections 3, 8 and 33 of the constitution of the State of

7

Arizona.”). Federal question jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which

8

provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising

9

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Section 1331 does not

10

itself create federal jurisdiction; it “confers jurisdiction only where a federal question

11

is otherwise at issue[.]” Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227, 229 (9th Cir. 1980). In

12

general, a federal question invokes a “right or immunity created by the Constitution or

13

laws of the United States[.]” Gully v. First Nat'l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112 (1936).

14

That federal right or immunity “must be an element, and an essential one, of the

15

plaintiff’s cause of action.” Id. While it is not an infallible rule, if federal law creates

16

the cause of action, federal question jurisdiction will generally lie. Murphey v. Lanier,

17

204 F.3d 911, 912 (9th Cir. 2000); see Am. Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.,

18

241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916) (“A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of

19

action.”).

20

The complaint’s jurisdictional statement and the extortion claim refer to 18

21

U.S.C. § 241. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 20, 75. But because § 241 is a criminal statute that does not

22

give rise to civil liability, see Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048

23

(9th Cir. 2006), the complaint does not state a claim arising under § 241 and therefore

24

the Court’s federal question jurisdiction cannot be premised on this statute. The

25

complaint does not identify any other federal statute or any right created by the United

26

States Constitution.3 See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor does the complaint assert that the

27

3

Plaintiff’s response indicates that he is asserting a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim

28
-3-

1

parties are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Because Plaintiff has

2

not shown that his complaint is subject to federal question or diversity jurisdiction, the

3

Court will dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R.

4

Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

5

III.

Leave to Amend.

6

“The court should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so

7

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see 28 U.S.C. § 1653 (authorizing amendment of

8

pleadings to cure defective jurisdictional statement). In the Ninth Circuit, “[a] pro se

9

litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is ‘absolutely clear

10

that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.’” Karim-

11

Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Noll v.

12

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also Waters v. Young, 100 F.3d

13

1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1996) (“As a general matter, this court has long sought to ensure

14

that pro se litigants do not unwittingly fall victim to procedural requirements that they

15

may, with some assistance from the court, be able to satisfy.”). The Court will dismiss

16

the complaint without prejudice and allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint,

17

consistent with this order, that properly invokes the Court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall

18

have until Friday, June 28, 2013, to file an amended complaint.

19

The Court is required to give some guidance to a pro se plaintiff regarding the

20

deficiencies of a dismissed complaint. Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 625. Plaintiff’s

21

complaint has failed adequately to state the basis on which this Court may exercise

22

jurisdiction over his claims against any of the Defendants. Plaintiff is advised that his

23

amended complaint must include a “short and plain statement of the grounds” for this

24

Court’s jurisdiction over each claim against each Defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

25
26
27

(Doc. 32 at 7), and claims under the Fifth and Seventh Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution (id. at 12). The Court has construed the complaint liberally, see Eldridge
v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987), and finds that the complaint does not
assert these claims.

28
-4-

1

Pursuant to federal statutes, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim only

2

if (a) the complaint alleges a federal claim (“federal question jurisdiction”), (b) the

3

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states

4

(“diversity jurisdiction”), or (c) federal question or diversity jurisdiction exists over

5

some of the claims and supplemental jurisdiction is established over the remaining

6

claims. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a), 1367.

7

IV.

Plaintiff's Obligations.

8

Defendants’ motions raise issues concerning (1) the filing of a notice of claim,

9

A.R.S. § 12-821.01; (2) failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); (3) service of

10

process, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j), (m); and (4) statutes of limitations, A.R.S. §§ 12-821, 12-

11

542. Docs. 8, 10, 14. If Plaintiff is able to cure the jurisdictional defect of his

12

complaint, the amended complaint will have to address these issues as well.

13

Plaintiff is advised that he must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal

14

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the

15

District of Arizona (“Local Rules”).

16

available at the following Internet website: www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A copy

17

of the Court’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure may be obtained in the Clerk’s Office

18

and are available online at the Court’s Internet website:

19

(follow hyperlink titled “Rules/General Orders”).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are

www.azd.uscourts.gov

20

For purposes of the amended complaint, Plaintiff is directed to Rule 8 of the

21

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint “must contain

22

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, . . . (2) a

23

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and

24

(3) a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). These pleading requirements

25

shall be set forth in separate and discrete paragraphs. Rule 8(d) provides that each

26

such paragraph “must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). The

27

forms contained in the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – which

28

include forms regarding jurisdictional statements and sample complaints on various
-5-

1

causes of action – “suffice under the[ ] rules and illustrate the simplicity and brevity

2

that the[ ] rules contemplate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 84.

3

If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action or to comply with the rules or any Court

4

order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of

5

Civil Procedure 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

6

(holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se

7

plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply with a court order).

8

IT IS ORDERED:

9

1.

subject matter jurisdiction.

10
11

2.

3.

16
17

The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action without further order of
the Court if Plaintiff fails to comply with this deadline.

14
15

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before June 28, 2013,
consistent with this order.

12
13

Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice for lack of

4.

All pending motions (Docs. 8, 10, 14, 15, 28, 43, 44, 46) are denied as
moot.

Dated this 29th day of May, 2013.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-