Cole v. Elder Body of Tualatin Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witness et al

Filing 6

Opinion & Order: This case is Dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to comply with this court's order. Signed on 1/30/09 by Chief Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (gm)

FILED

30

I N T H E U N I T E D STATES D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R T H E DISTRICT OF OREGON

W I L M A L E A H COLE,

CV.08-1401-PK OPINION A N D ORDER

Plaintiff,

v.
ELDER BODY o f T U A L A T I N K I N G D O M HALL JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES et al. Defendants.

H A G G E R T Y , C h i e f Judge: Plaintiff Wilma Cole, appearing pro se, filed this action against the Elder Body o f Tualatin Kingdom Hall Jehovah's Witnesses, the Aloha Kingdom Hall, and individual members o f t h o s e congregations. Cole's complaint appears to arise from h e r removal from the congregations named i n the complaint. For the reasons set fOlih below, this action i s dismissed w i t h prejudice. P a g e 1 - OPINION AND O R D E R

LEGAL S T A N D A R D Federal Civil P r o c e d u r e Rule l 2 ( h ) ( 3 ) p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ i ] f t h e c o u r t d e t e n n i n e s a t a n y t i m e t h a t i t lacks s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n , the court m u s t dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Cal. D i v e r s i f i e d Promotions, Inc. v. }.;[usick, 505 F . 2 d 278, 280 ( 9 t h Cir. 1974) ("It h a s l o n g b e e n h e l d t h a t a j u d g e c a n d i s m i s s s u a s p o n t e f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n " ) . F e d e r a l c o u r t s are p r e s u m p t i v e l y w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r c i v i l c a s e s a n d t h e b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e contrary rests u p o n the p a r t y asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. o fA m . , 511 U.S. 375, 3 7 7 (1994). "[F]ederal c o m t s liberally to construe the 'inartful pleading' o f pro se litigants." F e r d i k v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,1260-1261 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't., 839 F.2d 621, 623 ( 9 t h Cir. 1988). T h a t is, c o m t s h o l d pro se pleadings to a less
stringent standard t h a n t h o s e drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Specifically, a pro se l i t i g a n t is e n t i t l e d to n o t i c e o f t h e d e f i c i e n c i e s i n t h e c o m p l a i n t a n d a n opportunity to amend, unless the complaint's deficiencies c a n n o t be c u r e d by amendment. See

Karim-Panahi, 839 F . 2 d a t 6 2 3 - 6 2 4 .

BACKGROUND
C o l e f i l e d h e r o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t i n t h i s a c t i o n o n D e c e m b e r 3 , 2 0 0 8 . O n J a n u m y 6, 2 0 0 9 , this COUlt d i s m i s s e d the a c t i o n for lack o f subject m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . In i t s ruling, t h e c o m t s e t fOlth the deficiencies i n the c o m p l a i n t and granted Cole leave to amend w i t h i n t h h t y days t o cure those d e f i c i e n c i e s . Cole t i m e l y filed h e r first a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t o n J a n u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 . Cole's a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t , however, does n o t COlTect the deficiencies i n h e r original complaint. The a m e n d e d

Page 2 - OPINION AND O R D E R

complaint consists o f more than thirty pages and is entirely incoherent. Like the original c o m p l a i n t , the a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t d o e s n o t m a k e a n y a l l e g a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g s u b j e c t m a t t e r jurisdiction. I t does n o t cite to any federal l a w o r constitutional provision, nor does it set fOlih the d e f e n d a n t s ' s t a t e s o f c i t i z e n s h i p . F i n a l l y , a l t h o u g h t h e a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t s t a t e s i n s e v e r a l p l a c e s t h a t C o l e s e e k s t o b e r e i n s t a t e d a s a J e h o v a h ' s W i t n e s s , i t d o e s n o t r e q u e s t any o t h e r f o r m o f relief.

DISCUSSION
The court has a continuing duty to dismiss a n action whenever it appears that the c o u l i lacks jurisdiction. Billingsley v. Comm'r o f the I R . S . , 868 F.2d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 1989). T h u s , i f t h e c o u l i d e t e r m i n e s t h a t s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i s l a c k i n g , the C o u r t m u s t d i s m i s s the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Federal subject matter jurisdiction m u s t be based o n either a c l a i m i n v o l v i n g t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , l a w s o r t r e a t i e s o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s , o r o n d i v e r s i t y o f citizenship between the parties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Here, this cOUli does n o t have federal subject matter j u r i s d i c t i o n based on the facts a l l e g e d i n C o l e ' s f i r s t a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t . T h e c o m p l a i n t c o n t a i n s no c a u s e o f a c t i o n a r i s i n g under, o r that contains a n y reference to, any federal statute o r the U.S. Constitution, nor does it i n d i c a t e C o l e ' s o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' s t a t e c i t i z e n s h i p . T h e r e f o r e , 1 m u s t d i s m i s s t h e action. I a l s o conclude that it i s appropriate to dismiss this action with prejudice. Cole's failure to address the deficiencies as set out in m y earlier order indicates t h a t fUliher leave to amend would be futile. M o r e o v e r , a c o u l i m a y d i s m i s s a c a s e f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y w i t h the F e d e r a l Rules o f Civil Procedure o r a cOUli order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also A g n e w v. ]v!oody, 330 F.2d 868, 870-871 (9th Cir. 1964). Th e district cOUli, however, m u s t weigh five factors to

P a g e 3 - OPINION AND O R D E R

determine whether to dismiss a case for failUre to comply w i t h a court order, including: " ( I ) the public's interest in expeditious resolution o f litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the r i s k o f prejudice t o the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition o f cases on their merits; and (5) the availability o f less drastic alternatives." Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted). Here, Cole's lack o f any effort to comply with the court's earlier order is ground for dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 41(b). See Agnew, 330 F.2d at

870; Nevijel v. North Coast L i f t Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). "The public's
interest i n expeditious resolution o f litigation always favors dismissal." Yow'ish v. California

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal citation omitted). Moreover, review o f
C o l e ' s i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e p l e a d i n g s t a k e s v a l u a b l e t i m e a w a y f r o m t h e o t h e r m a t t e r s o n this court's docket. See Ferdick, 963 F.2d at 1261. In addition, Cole's failure to comply with the court's earlier order demonstrates that less drastic alternatives to dismissal will prove ineffective.

See Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 674 ("Though there are a wide variety o f sanctions short o f dismissal
available, the district c o m i need n o t exhaust them all before finally dismissing a case. ")
CONCLUSION

This case is dismissed with prejudice for lack o f subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to comply with this comi's order. D a t e d this 3 0 t h d a y O ~ 0 0 9 .

Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER