Dean v. Galt Place Senior Living
Filing
8
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/03/18 RECOMMENDING that the action be dismissed re 7 Amended, 1 Complaint. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. IT IS OLSO HEREBY ORDE RED that all pleading, discovery, and Motion practice in this action are STAYED pending resolution of these Findings and Recommendations. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to these F&Rs due within fourteen days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL DEAN,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:18-cv-01693-KJM-CKD PS
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER AND
GALT PLACE SENIOR LIVING,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff Michael Dean, who proceeds without counsel, commenced this action on June
18
11, 2018 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF
19
Nos. 1, 2, 4.) The court granted the request, but simultaneously dismissed the action because the
20
complaint failed to state a federal claim. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff was granted an opportunity to
21
file an amended complaint, which he did on September 12, 2018. (ECF No. 7.) For the reasons
22
discussed below, the court concludes that it lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over the
23
action. Accordingly, the court recommends that the action be dismissed without prejudice.
24
A federal court has an independent duty to assess whether federal subject matter
25
jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v.
26
Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had a duty
27
to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties
28
raised the issue or not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996).
1
1
The court must sua sponte dismiss the case if, at any time, it determines that it lacks subject
2
matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A federal district court generally has original
3
jurisdiction over a civil action when: (1) a federal question is presented in an action “arising
4
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” or (2) there is complete diversity of
5
citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).
6
Here, the court previously advised plaintiff that his complaint failed to invoke this court’s
7
jurisdiction because it failed to state a claim under federal law. (See generally, ECF No. 6.)
8
Specifically, the court admonished plaintiff that “[a]lthough plaintiff apparently asserts a federal
9
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, such a claim generally does not lie against a private individual or
10
business entity that does not act under color of state law.” (Id. at 2 citing Franklin v. Fox, 312
11
F.3d 423, 444 (9th Cir. 2002).)
12
The first amended complaint (“FAC”) similarly fails to invoke this court’s jurisdiction.
13
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Galt Place Senior Living has committed various torts against him
14
and lists his claims as “TORT[.] PERSONAL INSULTS[.] DAMAGED PROPERTY.
15
PROPERTY INFESTED BY PEST. MEDICAL INJURY POISONING BY BUGS.” (ECF No.
16
7 at 5.) On the form he used to file his FAC, plaintiff has checked a box that indicates that his
17
claims are brought pursuant to federal question subject matter jurisdiction. (Id. at 3.) However,
18
plaintiff’s claims do not implicate federal law. First, the FAC fails to state a claim under 42
19
U.S.C. § 1983 because plaintiff does not allege that defendant violated any of his constitutional
20
rights and because plaintiff has again failed to allege that defendant is a state actor. Second, the
21
tort claims listed in the FAC are governed by state law.
22
Thus, the court plainly does not have federal question jurisdiction over this action.
23
Additionally, there is no diversity of citizenship jurisdiction because both plaintiff and defendant
24
are citizens of California.
25
Further leave to amend would be futile because plaintiff was previously advised that his
26
complaint failed to state a claim that established this court’s jurisdiction and yet he failed to cure
27
this issue in the FAC. Indeed, nothing in the FAC suggests that plaintiff could plausibly state a
28
federal claim against defendant.
2
1
Therefore, the court recommends that the action be dismissed for lack of federal subject
2
matter jurisdiction without prejudice, so that plaintiff may bring his claims in the appropriate state
3
court, if he so chooses.
4
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
5
1. The action be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
6
2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
7
In light of these recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading,
8
discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of these findings and
9
recommendations. Other than objections to the findings and recommendations or non-frivolous
10
motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any pleadings or motions
11
until the findings and recommendations are resolved.
12
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
13
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)
14
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
15
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
16
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
17
shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the
18
objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
19
waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th
20
Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
21
Dated: October 3, 2018
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14/ps.18-1693.dean.dismissal
3
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?