Taylor v. 1st United Services Credit Union

Filing 7

ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/17/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KEITH DESMOND TAYLOR,

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C-13-2913 EMC (pr)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1ST UNITED SERVICES
CREDIT UNION,
Defendant.
/

13
14

Plaintiff filed this pro se civil action and applied to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court

15

reviewed his complaint, found it lacking in essential information, and dismissed it with leave to

16

amend. His amended complaint is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e),

17

which allows the Court to dismiss an in forma pauperis action if the action is frivolous or malicious,

18

or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Pro

19

se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

20

(9th Cir. 1990).

21

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant took over a credit union at which he had an "investment

22

account" with about $600.00 in it. Docket # 1 at 3; Docket # 6 at 3. Plaintiff – who has been on

23

death row for about 17 years, see People v. Taylor, 47 Cal. 4th 850, 567 (Cal. 2009) – allegedly

24

never used or closed the account. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has denied that he has an

25

account and has not sent a “printout of the account.” Docket # 6 at 3. Plaintiff attached to his

26

amended complaint an undated letter from Defendant to him that stated: “You currently don’t hold

27

any accounts with the credit union.” Id. at 5. In his prayer for relief, Plaintiff requests that he

28

receive the money in the account.

1

Now that Plaintiff has described his claim, it is clear that he is in the wrong court. “Federal

2

courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution

3

and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The two

4

main classes of cases over which the federal courts have jurisdiction are those that present a federal

5

question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and those in which the parties have diverse citizenship, see 28

6

U.S.C. § 1332.

7

Plaintiff used the form complaint for a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although
an action under § 1983 would present a federal question and would give this Court original

9

jurisdiction, this action plainly is not an action that may be pursued under § 1983. Both elements of

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

a § 1983 action are absent: the private credit union is not a state actor, and the events and omissions

11

giving rise to the complaint plainly do not amount to a violation of any right secured by the

12

Constitution or laws of the United States. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (describing

13

elements of a § 1983 claim). Plaintiff has not identified any other federal statute that would give this

14

Court federal question jurisdiction, and the Court is not aware of one that would. Even if the credit

15

union was a corporation organized under federal law, the Court would not potentially have

16

jurisdiction over a civil action against it unless the United States owned more than half of the

17

corporation’s capital stock, which is not alleged to be the case here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1349. There is

18

no federal question jurisdiction.

19

There also is not diversity jurisdiction because both the Plaintiff and Defendant – a credit

20

union headquartered in Pleasanton – appear to be citizens of California and the amount in dispute

21

does not meet the jurisdictional minimum. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

22

This action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Any action to obtain from

23

Defendant the money Plaintiff allegedly deposited with Defendant must be pursued in state court.

24

The clerk shall close the file.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: October 17, 2013

27

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

28
2