Pettigrew v. Wilson et al

Filing 13

ORDER that the Clerk of Court shall file the second amended complaint. The second amended complaint is Dismissed with leave to amend. Amended Complaint deadline: 3/27/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/23/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 DONNELLE PETTIGREW, 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. On January 9, 2017, the Court denied 19 Plaintiff’s application without prejudice. Docket No. 3. On January 11, 2017, Plaintiff submitted 20 a renewed application, which the Court granted on January 17, 2017. Docket Nos. 4, 5. On January 21 17, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and dismissed the 22 complaint with leave to amend. Docket No. 5. The Court found that the complaint attempted to 23 state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but failed to allege that Defendants were state actors or acted 24 under color of law. Id. at 3. The Court provided Plaintiff an opportunity to cure that defect. Id. at 25 3-4. On February 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that alleged various state law 26 claims. Docket No. 7. On February 17, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint 27 with leave to amend for failure to sufficiently allege subject matter jurisdiction. Docket No. 10. 28 Plaintiff has now filed a second amended complaint. Docket No. 12. 12 Plaintiff(s), 13 vs. 14 TOM WILSON, et al., 15 Defendant(s). Case No. 2:16-cv-03012-APG-NJK ORDER 1 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a 2 complaint pursuant to § 1915. Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action 3 is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 4 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). When 5 a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(a), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 6 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 7 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 8 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 9 In addition, the Court has a duty to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the 10 dispute before it. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction 11 and possess only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute. See Kokkonen v. Guardian 12 Life Ins. Co. Of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in 13 a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated Tribes 14 of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). Therefore, federal subject matter 15 jurisdiction must exist at the time the action is commenced. Mamigonian v. Biggs, 710 F.3d 936, 16 942 (9th Cir.2013). Further, as Plaintiff is the party who invokes the Court’s jurisdiction, Plaintiff 17 bears the burden of proving that the case is properly in federal court. McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 18 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted). 19 While Plaintiff’s second amended complaint does not explicitly address subject matter 20 jurisdiction, she appears to allege claims under a federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1033, and 21 under state law. Docket No. 12 at 3-4. Plaintiff also appears to request approximately $300,000 in 22 damages. Id. at 5. 23 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint again fails to sufficiently allege subject matter 24 jurisdiction. The Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this action because 18 25 U.S.C. § 1033 is a criminal statute that does not provide a private right of action. See, e.g., Savini 26 Constr. Co. v. Crooks Bros. Constr. Co., 540 F.2d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir. 1974) (courts may only infer 27 28 2 1 private causes of action for damages from federal criminal statutes when “such inference is 2 consistent with the evident legislative intent and . . . with the effectuation of the purposes intended 3 to be served [by] the Act”) (internal citation omitted); Byrd v. Sand Canyon Corp., 2010 WL 4 3942830, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2010) (rejecting claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1033 and noting that 5 “private actions are maintainable under federal criminal statutes in only very limited circumstances”) 6 (collecting cases)). Further, Plaintiff fails to allege the citizenship of any of the parties. See Docket 7 No. 12. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to establish diversity of citizenship, which means she has failed 8 to establish diversity jurisdiction. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 9 2004); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court 10 allows plaintiff one final opportunity to demonstrate that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction 11 over her case. 12 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 13 1. 14 15 The Clerk of Court shall file the second amended complaint. The second amended complaint is DISMISSED, with leave to amend. 2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a third amended complaint, if she believes she can 16 cure the deficiencies noted above. If Plaintiff chooses to file a third amended 17 complaint, she is advised that an amended complaint supersedes (replaces) the 18 original complaint and, thus, the third amended complaint must be complete in itself. 19 See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th 20 Cir. 1989) (holding that “[t]he fact that a party was named in the original complaint 21 is irrelevant; an amended pleading supersedes the original”); see also Lacey v. 22 Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that for claims dismissed 23 with prejudice, a plaintiff is not required to reallege such claims in a subsequent 24 amended complaint to preserve them for appeal). 25 complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and factual allegations that Plaintiff 26 wishes to pursue in this lawsuit. 27 28 3 Plaintiff’s third amended 1 3. If Plaintiff chooses to file a third amended complaint curing the deficiencies, as 2 outlined in this order, Plaintiff shall file the third amended complaint no later than 3 March 27, 2017. 4 4. If Plaintiff chooses not to file a third amended complaint by the deadline, the 5 undersigned will recommend dismissal of this case without prejudice. If Plaintiff 6 timely files a third amended complaint, but the Court determines that it does not state 7 any claims upon which relief may be granted and/or does not establish federal subject 8 matter jurisdiction, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of this case without 9 prejudice. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 DATED: February 23, 2017 12 13 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?