Young v. 4909 Beverly LLC

Filing 4

ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1 ) is dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days from the date of this Order. If no Amended Complaint is timely filed, the Clerk shall dismiss this action without further Order of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2 ) because Plaintiff provided insufficient detail. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 4/13/16. (LAD)

Download PDF
1 WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Brittian Willie Young, Plaintiff, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-16-00961-PHX-JJT 4909 Beverly LLC, 13 Defendant. 14 At issue is pro se Plaintiff Brittian Willie Young’s Application to Proceed in 15 16 District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). 17 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 18 A. 19 For cases in which a party is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis—that is, the 20 party lacks the means to pay court fees—Congress provided that a district court “shall 21 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that the “allegation of poverty is 22 untrue” or that the “action or appeal” is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on 23 which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 24 from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 25 proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). “It is also clear that 26 section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma 27 pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Id. at 1127. 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 1 B. 2 Unlike state courts, federal courts only have jurisdiction over a limited number of 3 cases, and those cases typically involve either a controversy between citizens of different 4 states (“diversity jurisdiction”) or a question of federal law (“federal question 5 jurisdiction”). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The United States Supreme Court has stated 6 that a federal court must not disregard or evade the limits on its subject matter 7 jurisdiction. Owen Equip. & Erections Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). Thus, a 8 federal court is obligated to inquire into its subject matter jurisdiction in each case and to 9 dismiss a case when subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 10 Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Pleading in Federal Court 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides that a complaint must include “a 12 short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” and “a short and 13 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In other words, 14 to proceed in federal court, a plaintiff must allege enough in the complaint for the court to 15 conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction. See Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 16 5 Fed. Practice & Procedure § 1206 (3d ed. 2014). The complaint must also contain 17 “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 18 face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 19 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 20 II. ANALYSIS 21 With regard to the Complaint (Doc. 1, Compl.), the Court finds it lacks a clear 22 statement of the grounds for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, as required by Rule 23 8(a). It appears that Plaintiff may be asserting federal question jurisdiction by stating 24 “constitutional provisions have been violated.” (Compl. at 1.) However, Plaintiff also 25 notes Plaintiff and Defendant’s respective residencies and “negligence, and duty of care,” 26 suggesting he may be asserting diversity jurisdiction over a state law cause of action. 27 (Compl. at 1.) Plaintiff must provide a clear basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. This defect 28 -2- 1 alone is cause for the Court to dismiss the Complaint. See Watson v. Chessman, 362 F. 2 Supp. 2d 1190, 1194 (S.D. Cal. 2005). 3 Plaintiff also fails to meet the Rule 8 requirements with regard to stating a claim. 4 Plaintiff alleges “Defendant failed and violated conditions of personal verbal agreements 5 and written agreements which lead to the destruction of a sacrament and place of 6 conception.” (Compl. at 2.) He also alleges “Defendant’s actions lead to the violation of 7 civil rights and due process in the fact that evidence was removed and there was a breach 8 of contract . . . .” (Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff’s allegations are general, conclusory, and devoid 9 of any facts showing, for example, what Defendant did, said, did not do, or did not say, and 10 why any action or inaction violates any law or the Constitution. It is impossible from the 11 pleadings for this Court or for Defendant to have notice of any specific or general acts 12 taken by Defendant that Plaintiff claims to be contrary to law. The Court concludes 13 Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and it will 14 dismiss the action without prejudice. 15 If a defective complaint can be cured, the plaintiff is entitled to amend the complaint 16 before the action is dismissed. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127–30. Here, the Court will give 17 Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his Complaint, but any Amended Complaint must meet 18 the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 19 With regard to the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying 20 Fees or Costs (Doc. 2), the Court finds that the Application is not clear enough for the 21 Court to meaningfully evaluate Plaintiff’s ability to pay the costs of these proceedings. 22 Specifically, the basis for the change in Plaintiff’s monthly income from $8,700 to $700 23 and his $580 “other” monthly expenses is unclear. 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint that 26 complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days from the date of 27 this Order. If no Amended Complaint is timely filed, the Clerk shall dismiss this action 28 without further Order of the Court. -3- 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District 2 Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) because Plaintiff provided insufficient 3 detail. If Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff may either file an Amended 4 Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs containing the 5 required information, or pay the Court’s filing fee. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects to file an Amended Complaint, 7 it may not be served on Defendant until and unless the Court screens the Amended 8 Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If and when the Court gives Plaintiff leave 9 to serve an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff shall be responsible for service and may do so by 10 11 request for waiver under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Dated this 13th day of April, 2016. 12 13 14 Honorable John J. Tuchi United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?