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)

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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-