Jeffers v. Dollar General Corporation et al
Filing
25
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Gregory K Frizzell ; finding as moot 8 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 9 Motion for Summary Judgment (cds, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
VERNELL JEFFERS, JR.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION,
)
Case No. 11-CV-190-GKF-TLW
and THERESA ANN BEALL, individually
)
and in her official capacity,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court are the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt.
##8, 9] filed by defendants Dollar General Corporation (“Dollar General”) and Theresa Ann
Beall (“Beall”).
In his Amended Complaint [Dkt. #4], plaintiff Vernell Jeffers, Jr. (“Jeffers”), acting pro
se, states this action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the “Civil Rights Act”), and alleges
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and § 1343(a)(3) (civil rights
jurisdiction). Additionally, he invokes pendent jurisdiction of the court to decide claims arising
under state law.
Jeffers alleges he was arrested on January 3, 1989, at a Dollar General Store in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, by a Dollar General security officer, charged with armed robbery, booked into the
Tulsa County Jail and detained for two weeks. Ultimately, the charges against him were
dismissed.
Plaintiff asserts claims against Dollar General and its employee for violation of his
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, and common
law claims of negligence, illegal arrest and malicious prosecution.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and alternative motion for summary judgment, asserting the negligence
and false arrest claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitation and the malicious
prosecution claim is precluded because plaintiff did not prevail on the criminal charges brought
against him in state court.
Neither party challenged the court’s jurisdiction of this case. However, because federal
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, the court is under an independent obligation to examine
its own jurisdiction. Amazon, Inc. v. Dirt Camp, Inc., 273 F.3d 1271, 1274 (10th Cir. 2001)
(citing Skrzypczak v. Kauger, 92 F.3d 1050, 1052 (10th Cir. 1996)). The allegations of the
Amended Complaint, on their face, raise the question of whether subject matter jurisdiction
exists.
The Civil Rights Act provides a cause of action against any person who “under color of
any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State…” deprives an individual of his
constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “[T]he under-color-of-state-law element of § 1983
excludes from its reach merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful.” Am.
Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999). Thus, private actors generally cannot be
held liable under § 1983. Draeger v. Grand Central, Inc., 504 F.2d 142, 146 (10th Cir. 1974).
Rather, “the aggrieved person must look to common law actions for relief.” Id. The Amended
Complaint therefore fails to state a cognizable claim for a § 1983 action.
2
Plaintiff has asserted common law claims for negligence, false arrest and malicious
prosecution. However, the court’s jurisdiction is premised solely on the alleged § 1983
violation. Since plaintiff’s complaint fails to assert a viable § 1983 claim, this court lacks
jurisdiction over the common law claims.
Therefore, this action is dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and alternative Motion for Summary
Judgment [Dkt. ##8-9] are moot.
ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2012.
3
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?