Boyd v. Multifamily USA Apts et al

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING Amended Complaint Without Prejudice For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The Court Grants Plaintiff forty-five (45) leave to file a second amended complaint. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 3/27/2014. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MARIO BOYD
vs.

CASE NO. 12cv2080-GPC-BLM
Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING
AMENDED COMPLAINT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
LACK OF FEDERAL SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

13
14
15

MULTIFAMILY USA APTS.,
VINTABE POINT ASST. MGR.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[Dkt. No. 8.]

Defendant.
On August 23, 2012, Plaintiff Mario Boyd, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, commenced this action against Defendants Multifamily USA Apts. and
Vintage Point Asst. Mgr. (Dkt. No. 1.) On December 20, 2012, the Court sua sponte
dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granted
Plaintiff thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 5.) The Court’s Order
was returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. No. 6.) On December 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 8.) For the following reasons, the Court again sua
sponte DISMISSES the Amended Complaint for lack of federal subject matter
jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal
-1-

[12cv2080-GPC(BLM) ]

1

by the Court to the extent it is “frivolous, or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which

2

relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant immune from such

3

relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001)

4

(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”).

5

As stated in the Court’s Order dismissing Plaintiff’s initial Complaint, a federal

6

court cannot reach the merits of any dispute until it confirms that it retains subject

7

matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues presented. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a

8

Better Environ., 523 U.S. 83, 95 (1998). Federal courts are under a continuing duty to

9

confirm their jurisdictional power and are “obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a

10

doubt arises as to [its] existence . . . .” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v.

11

Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977) (citations omitted).

12

As explained in the Court’s prior order, federal courts are courts of limited

13

jurisdiction. Unlike state courts, they have no ‘inherent' or ‘general' subject matter

14

jurisdiction. They can adjudicate only those cases which the Constitution and Congress

15

authorize them to adjudicate, i.e. those involving diversity of citizenship, a federal

16

question, or to which the United States is a party. See Finley v. United States, 490 U.S.

17

545 (1989). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions and

18

the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. See

19

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).

20

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to cure the defects of Plaintiff’s original

21

Complaint. As in his initial Complaint, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges

22

“wrongful discrimination base[sic] on sexual orientation by landlord manager . . . I was

23

subjected to racial based upon my race, also perceived sexual orientation as being gay

24

which became hostile environment.” (Dkt. No. 8 at 1.) However, Plaintiff again fails

25

to invoke a federal question or show that diversity jurisdiction exists. Moreover, the

26

United States is not a party to this case. As a result, Plaintiff has not presented a

27

sufficient basis for federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES

28

the Amended Complaint without prejudice.
-2-

[12cv2080-GPC(BLM) ]

1

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

2

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Amended

3

Complaint, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court

4

GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date of this order to file a second

5

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified herein.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

DATED: March 27, 2014
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

[12cv2080-GPC(BLM) ]