La Toya Hicks v. Los Angeles Police Department Pacific Division et al

Filing 41

ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge Manuel L. Real, 39 Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (pj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CASE NO.: CV13-01596 R (PLAx)

)
)
)
12
Plaintiff,
)
)
13 vs.
)
)
14 LOS ANGELES POLICE
)
DEPARTMENT PACIFIC
)
15 DIVISION, POLICE OFFICER
MALDONADO SERIAL NO. 40828, )
)
16 POLICE OFFICER WEBBER
)
SERIAL NO. 38219, POLICE
)
17 OFFICER ISIDE SERIAL NO.
)
40482, POLICE OFFICER
)
18 WATKINS SERIAL NO. 38073,
)
SGT. GURA SERIAL NO. 33763,
)
19 THOMAS ENNIS, STEVEN L.
)
MATILLA, ERA MATILLA
)
20 REALTY, MATILLA REALTY
)
INC., THOMAS CORTE, ENNIS
21 TRUST #2, ENNIS G THOMAS TR )
)
ENNIS CHILDREN TRUST 2, NS
)
22 WASH, NS WASH
CORPORATION, DANA WRIGHT, )
)
23 RYAN LEE,
)
)
Defendants.
24
)
____________________________
11

LA TOYA HICKS,

Complaint filed: March 6, 2013

Hon. Judge Manuel L. Real
Courtroom 8

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

25
26

On May 13, 2013, this Court held an Order to Show Cause Hearing regarding

27

why this action should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction. Deputy City

28

Attorney Richard M. Arias appeared for defendants, Gino P. Pieto appeared for plaintiff.
1

1

The Court reasoned and ruled as follows:

2

1.

3

On the face of the complaint, the only arguable basis for invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court is federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.
2.

4

To invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, plaintiff’s claim must

5

arise out of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. Section

6

1331.
3.

7

While it is true the Court has jurisdiction to hear cases involving alleged

8

violations of the Constitution, this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an action

9

merely because the complaint makes some reference to violations of the Fourth and

10

Fourteenth Amendments – the right or immunity created by the Constitution must be an

11

element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s claim. Gally v. First National Bank, 299

12

U.S. 109, 112 (1936).
4.

13

On the face of the complaint, none of plaintiff’s 15 claims require resolution

14

of a federal constitutional question. Generally, each claim arises under state tort law.

15

And none of the claims include federal constitutional violations as an essential element.

16

Plaintiff cannot create federal jurisdiction by mere reference to the Constitution

17

throughout her 76-page complaint.
5.

18

Plaintiff alleges violations of 18 U.S.C. section 241, 42 U.S.C. section 3631,

19

18 U.S.C. section 242 and 42 U.S.C. section 14141. But none of those statutes create a

20

private right of action upon which a civil claim can rest. Allen v. Gold Country Casino,

21

464 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2006).
6.

22

Because plaintiff is not empowered – as a private citizen – to prosecute

23

violations of the criminal laws, he cannot invoke federal jurisdiction by alleging claims

24

under those statutes. Consequently, plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a question

25

arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. For that reason, plaintiff’s

26
27

///

28

///
2

1

complaint is dismissed for want of federal jurisdiction.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

DATE: May 21, 2013
HONORABLE MANUEL L. REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3