Coons v. Medford Oregon Building Safety Exterior Inspection Directive

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER: The Complaint 1 is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order in which to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an amended complaint w ithin the allotted time will result in the entry of a judgment of dismissal. The Court defers ruling on Plaintiff's petition to proceed IFP 2 until Plaintiff files an amended complaint or the time for doing so has expired. Signed on 4/23/2019 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. A copy of this Opinion and Order was mailed to pro se plaintiff Donald Alan Coons. (ck)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MEDFORD DIVISION

Civ. No. 1:19-cv-00614-AA

DONALD ALAN COONS,

OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff,
V.

MEDFORD OREGON BUILDING
SAFETY EXTERIOR INSPECTION
DIRECTIVE,
Defendant.

AIKEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Donald Alan Coons seeks leave to proceed in Jonna pauperis ("IFP") in this
action. ECF No. 2. For the reasons set forth below, the Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED
with leave to amend. The Court shall defer ruling on Plaintiffs IFP petition pending submission
of an amended complaint.

LEGAL STANDARD
Generally, all paities instituting any civil action in United States District Court must pay a
statutory filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, the federal IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(l),
provides indigent litigants an opportunity for meaningful access to federal comts despite their
inability to pay the costs and fees associated with that access. To authorize a litigant to proceed
IFP, a court must make two detem1inations. First, a court must dete1mine whether the litigant is
unable to pay the costs of commencing the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(l). Second, it must assess
whether the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

Page 1 -OPINION & ORDER

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief.

28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B).
In regard to the second of these determinations, district courts have the power under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints even before service of the complaint on the
defendants, and must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim. Coutis apply the same standard
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive a
motion to dismiss under the federal pleading standards, the complaint must include a short and
plain statement of the claim and "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face."' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678 (2009) (quoting
Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard ... asks for more than a
sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id The court is not required to accept
legal conclusions, unsupported by alleged facts, as true. Id.
Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than pleadings by attorneys. Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). That is, the comi should construe pleadings by prose

plaintiffs liberally and afford the plaintiffs the benefit of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles
Police Dep 't, 839 F.2d 621,623 (9th Cir. 1988). Additionally, a prose litigant is entitled to notice

of the deficiencies in the complaint and the opportunity to amend, unless the complaint's
deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Id

Page 2 -OPINION & ORDER

DISCUSSION

The Complaint in this case is disjointed and difficult to understand. The Court believes
that the heait of Coons' s Complaint concerns the presence of a streetlight outside of his home
and/or office.
There are several issues with Coons's Complaint, as cutTently pleaded. The first and most
serious is jurisdictional. Federal courts are comts of limited jurisdiction, "possessing only that
power authorized by Constitution and statute." Gunn v. lvfinton, 568 U.S. 251,256 (2013) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Federal jurisdiction may be based upon the presence of a
federal question or on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. To invoke federal
question jurisdiction, a plaintiff must plead that the defendant has violated some constitutional or
statutory provision. To establish diversity jurisdiction, a plaintiff must allege that he or she is a
citizen of one state, that all of the defendants are citizens of other states, and that the damages are
more than $75,000.
In this case, Coons is asserting federal question jurisdiction based on "Thee [sic] 1789
Providence Rhode Island G.W. Compact real estate law that refers at least title or at least before
title consideration not excluding argument [sic] against synthetic light harassment or nonmgmt
[sic]." The Comt is unable to identify the law or laws Coons is refen'ing to in this section. As
such, the Cou1t is unable to satisfy itself that it possesses subject matter jurisdiction over Coons' s
claims.
The more general problem with Coons's Complaint is its incomprehensibility.

The

discussion of the streetlight, if that is indeed the core of the Complaint, is brief. The Complaint
goes on to describe Coon's family history, including his father and grandfather's jobs, and a
volcanic eruption in Central America. The Court does not know what, if any, significance of these

Page 3 -OPINION & ORDER

facts have to Coons's Complaint. The Court cannot understand Coons's grievance and so cannot
assess whether Coons has standing or if this Court has jurisdiction. No defendant, if served with
the cutTent Complaint, could form a meaningful understanding of the claim or claims being made
against it.
In the light of the deficiencies described above, the Court concludes that Coons has failed
to state a claim. The Cami is mindful of the latitude that must be accorded to pro se plaintiffs,
however, and Coons will therefore be given leave to file an amended complaint. In drafting the
amended complaint, Coons must bear in mind that the Cami does not know anything about the
facts of his case, other than what he chooses to include in the amended complaint. In addition to
the jurisdictional issues, Coons should carefully explain what has happened, who has done what,
how he believes he was injured by the actions of the defendants, and why he believes that the
defendants should be held liable for the injury. Any facts unrelated to Coons's grievance should
be omitted.
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set fo1ih above, the Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to
amend. Plaintiff shall have thhiy (30) days from the date of this Order in which to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an amended complaint within the allotted time
will result in the entry of a judgment of dismissal.

The Cami defers ruling on Plaintiffs petition

to proceed IFP, ECF No. 2, until Plaintiff files an amended complaint or the time for doing so has
expired.
It is so ORDERED and DATED this

d 3> fsl) day of April, 2019.
ANN AIKEN
United States District Judge

Page 4 -OPINION & ORDER