Leatherby v. California, State of

Filing 6

ORDER: Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint complying with this Order within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. The Court will hold in abeyance its ruling on Plaintiff's request to proceed without the prepayment of fees and c osts until after it has had the opportunity to review Plaintiff's amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 6/07/2017. (REK)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Timothy Scott Leatherby,

10

No. CV-17-1133-PHX-DMF

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

State of California,

13

ORDER

Defendant.

14
15
16

This Order addresses Plaintiff’s request to proceed without the prepayment of fees
because of his indigency, as well as the complaint Plaintiff filed on April 17, 2017.

17

In every case where a plaintiff seeks to file a case without the prepayment of fees

18

the Court is required to analyze plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether that complaint

19

should be dismissed because it is not a case that is properly brought in federal court. 28

20

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff’s complaint appears to allege wrongs associated

21

with the State of California and its handling of a case involving Plaintiff in perhaps a

22

criminal matter. Plaintiff’s complaint provides no specifics about how his rights were

23

allegedly violated, by whom, when and where.

24

complaint which demonstrates that federal jurisdiction exists in this case or that Arizona

25

is the proper venue for a matter which appears to be solely connected with alleged

26

conduct in California.

There is also no allegation in the

27

Plaintiff should understand that the federal courts of the United States are courts of

28

limited jurisdiction and only matters that are authorized under the Constitution or laws of

1

the United States may be brought in federal court. In contrast, the state courts are courts

2

of general jurisdiction and thus most matters are properly heard in state courts.

3

If there is federal jurisdiction for this case, Plaintiff’s complaint must show that

4

this is so. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (available on-line or in any public

5

library) require that Plaintiff’s complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the

6

grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1). Again,

7

federal court jurisdiction is limited to matters arising under the constitution and laws of

8

the United States (this is called “federal question jurisdiction”) or cases where citizens of

9

different states are the plaintiff and defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds

10

$75,000 (this is called “diversity jurisdiction”). With respect to diversity jurisdiction, the

11

Court notes that the eleventh amendment to the United States Constitution provides that

12

no state may be sued in federal court “by Citizens of another State.”

13

If Plaintiff contends that federal question jurisdiction exists, Plaintiff must

14

specifically state which Constitutional provision or federal statute confers such

15

jurisdiction. A general or non-specific reference to the Constitution or laws of the United

16

States is insufficient.

17

proceedings and may decline to exercise jurisdiction over matters where a state court is

18

engaged. Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941). It may well

19

be that Plaintiff’s grievances may be addressed in the State of California or the appellate

20

courts of that state.

Moreover, federal courts are required to respect state court

21

To provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to allege federal court jurisdiction if

22

Plaintiff thinks it exists, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

23

Any amended complaint must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and

24

therefore must satisfy the jurisdictional showing discussed above as well as set forth “a

25

short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.”

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Plaintiff must take care to set forth specifically

27

which federal statute or provision of the U.S. Constitution was violated by which

28

defendant.

-2-

1

The Court also suggests that Plaintiff review the venue provisions of federal law

2

which describe which cases may be brought in which federal court. These are set forth in

3

the United States Code at 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). A federal court in Phoenix, for example,

4

may not preside in a matter that arose in California involving a California defendant

5

absent a specific provision of federal law that authorizes the Arizona court to do so.

6

Again, Plaintiff’s complaint contains no indication that venue is proper in Arizona.

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint

8

complying with this Order within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. The

9

Court will hold in abeyance its ruling on Plaintiff’s request to proceed without the

10

prepayment of fees and costs until after it has had the opportunity to review Plaintiff’s

11

amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this Order may result

12

in the dismissal of this matter.

13

Dated this 7th day of June, 2017.

14
15
16
17
18

*Magistrate Judge Duncan signing for Magistrate Judge Fine

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-