Edwards v. Jonas et al

Filing 9

Order by Hon. William Alsup denying 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.(whalc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/2/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MARK THOMAS EDWARDS,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. C 13-04788 WHA

v.
PATRICIA JONAS,

ORDER RE INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF

Defendant.
/
In this social security action, plaintiff has raised a demand for injunctive relief regarding

17

alleged retaliation due to a state court action. While plaintiff does not clearly state facts or

18

grounds for injunctive relief, this order does not need to reach the merits of plaintiff’s motion

19

because this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

20

A less stringent examination is afforded pro se pleadings. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

21

519, 520 (1972). A pro se plaintiff, however, still bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction.

22

Sopcak v. Northern Mountain Helicopter Serv., 52 F.3d 817, 818 (9th Cir.1995). Joinder of

23

claims under Rule 18 does not extend federal jurisdiction to joined claims. Rule 82. The

24

advisory committee notes accompanying Rule 82 state that “[the Federal Rules of Civil

25

Procedure] grant extensive power of joining claims and counterclaims in one action, but, as this

26

rule states, such grant does not extend federal jurisdiction.” Thus, plaintiff must affirmatively

27

show federal subject-matter jurisdiction over all joined claims. Lack of subject matter

28

jurisdiction may be raised at any time by a district court sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v.
Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996).

1

Plaintiff alleges a variety of grounds for federal jurisdiction, but all are inadequate. First,

27 U.S.C. 122(a). Section 122(a), however, applies only to interstate transportation of liquor.

4

Nothing in plaintiff’s motion involves liquor. Second, plaintiff claims that he is protected by the

5

Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. Yet, plaintiff’s own summary of the law concedes that it

6

only protects “federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report agency

7

misconduct” and plaintiff has not alleged that he works for the federal government. Third, and

8

most confusing, plaintiff alleges that defendants intentionally conspired to retaliate against him

9

on the basis of disability and is therefore entitled to protection under the Americans with

10

Disabilities Act. He claims a variety of conspiracies for his retaliation claim, but does not

11
For the Northern District of California

plaintiff alleges that the “‘whistleblowing’ on parties in [his state court action]” is protected by

3

United States District Court

2

provide any compelling documentation or evidence for his claims. Allegations that are

12

“attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, [and] devoid of merit” are insufficient for subject-matter

13

jurisdiction. See, e.g., Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir.1999); Franklin v. Murphy,

14

745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (same). More importantly, plaintiff seems to be

15

claiming that “agencies with the City of San Francisco” are behind the alleged conspiracies, but

16

they are not defendants in plaintiff’s social security appeal. In sum, all grounds for federal

17

jurisdiction alleged in plaintiff’s motion are insufficient and unrelated to the denial of his social

18

security benefits claim.

19

Thus, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is DENIED.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: December 2, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2