Marrapese et al v. University of California Board of Regents et al
Filing
7
ORDER DISMISSING Amended Complaint. Because it doesn't appear the Court has jurisdiction over the claims raised in the amended complaint, it is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint no later than June 5, 2013. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 5/22/13. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RICHARD J. MARRAPESE JR., et al.,
12
CASE NO. 13cv947-LAB (BGS)
Plaintiffs,
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED
COMPLAINT
vs.
13
14
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BOARD
OF REGENTS, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
Plaintiff Richard Marrapese, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed his complaint on April 19,
18
2013, bringing his own claims as well as those of a putative Plaintiff, his deceased father
19
Richard Marrapese, Sr. Although the complaint mentioned Marrapese, Sr.’s own claims,
20
neither his estate nor the executor nor administrator of his estate is named as a party.
21
Marrapese, Jr. moved to proceed in forma pauperis, and for appointment of counsel,
22
which the Court denied. The Court also dismissed the complaint, identifying defects in it that
23
appeared to deprive the Court of jurisdiction, but permitted him to file an amended complaint.
24
Marrapese, Jr. has now filed his amended complaint, and it appears the Court lacks
25
jurisdiction over it as well. The Court is obligated to examine its own jurisdiction, regardless
26
of whether either party raises the issue, and to dismiss the complaint if jurisdiction is lacking.
27
See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
28
///
-1-
13cv947
1
As pointed out in the Court’s order dismissing the original complaint, Marrapese, Jr.
2
lacks standing to sue on behalf of his deceased father. Furthermore, he cannot represent
3
his father’s estate in bringing any claims his father’s estate might have had, even assuming
4
they were not extinguished at his death. See Karras v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 191 F. Supp.
5
2d 1161, 1170–73 (S.D.Cal., 2002). Most of the amended complaint’s claims arise under
6
state law. The parties are obviously not diverse, so the Court’s power to adjudicate the
7
claims depends on whether the amended complaint includes one or more claims arising
8
under federal law, and the state-law claims are part of the same case or controversy. See
9
28 U.S.C. § 1367.
10
The amended complaint brings three broad claims. Of those, only the first includes
11
claims brought by Marrapese, Jr. The remainder of the first claim, as well as the second and
12
third claims, are putatively brought on behalf of Marrapese, Sr. Marrapese, Jr. was kept
13
from seeing his father, Marrapese, Sr. while the latter was in the hospital receiving treatment.
14
It concludes that this was done in retaliation for Marrapese, Jr.’s “protesting Sr.’s plight in
15
non-violent way.” (Am. Compl., 2:9–12.) In order to state a claim, Marrapese, Jr. must plead
16
facts that, accepted as true, state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
17
662, 678 (2009). A claim is plausible based on pleaded facts, not based on a plaintiff’s own
18
legal conclusions. Id.
19
To state a claim for violation of First Amendment rights based on retaliation, a plaintiff
20
must show that Defendants acted so as to deter or chill the plaintiff’s speech, and whether
21
such deterrance was a substantial or motivating factor in their conduct. Lacey v. Maricopa
22
County, 693 F.3d 896, 916 (9th Cir. 2012). A plaintiff need not show that his speech was
23
actually inhibited or suppressed, but rather whether the official’s acts would chill or silence
24
a person of ordinary firmness. Id. Such a claim would be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
25
The Defendants in this case are the University of California Board of Regents, and
26
the UCSD Medical Center. What either or both of these Defendants did is not alleged in
27
either the original complaint or the amended complaint. The original complaint alleges that
28
“UCSD police” and the UCSD Medical Center’s “senior management” removed him from the
-2-
13cv947
1
hospital, claiming that he was disrupting his father’s medical treatment. The complaint never
2
alleges who did these things, nor does it allege facts showing he had any right to be present
3
in the hospital or authority to direct his father’s medical treatment. It also does not allege
4
facts showing anyone took actions that would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness.
5
There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983; rather, government officials are
6
liable only for their own conduct. Maxwell v. County of San Diego, 708 F.3d 1075, 1097 (9th
7
Cir. 2013). A supervisor may be liable where the supervisor participated in the violation,
8
however. See id. To state a claim, the complaint must allege facts showing that the
9
supervisor breached a legal duty to the plaintiff, that the breach was the proximate cause of
10
the plaintiff’s constitutional injury, and that the supervisor had the required mens rea as
11
would be required for a direct violation of the plaintiff’s rights. Id. The amended complaint
12
alleges none of these things, nor are any officials even named as Defendants.
13
Because it doesn’t appear the Court has jurisdiction over the claims raised in the
14
amended complaint, it is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Marrapese, Jr. thinks he
15
can correct the defects this order has identified, he may do so by filing a second amended
16
complaint no later than June 5, 2013. A second amended complaint that does not comply
17
with this order or does not state a cognizable claim over which this Court can exercise
18
jurisdiction will be dismissed without leave to amend.
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 22, 2013
22
23
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
13cv947
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?