Anderson v. Key Bank of Oregon

Filing 5

OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff is directed to file an amended in forma pauperis application, within 30 days of the date of this order. Additionally, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint, curing the deficiencies noted above, within 30 days of the date of this order. In the event that Plaintiff fails to file such an amended complaint, this case will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Signed on 2/4/09 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (gm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

R O B E R T T. ANDERSON, Plaintiff,

CY.09-115-PK OPINION AND ORDER

v.

KEY BANK OF OREGON, Defendant.

B r o w n , Judge: P l a i n t i f f R o b e l i Anderson, appearing pro se, filed this action against Key B a n k o f Oregon. Anderson's motion to proceed in f o r m a pauperis (# I) is presently before the court. An examination o f the application reveals that it is incomplete. Accordingly, I deny Anderson's motion to proceed in f o r m a pauperis with leave to refile. In addition, for the reasons set forth below, Anderson's complaint (#2) is dismissed for lack o f subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which r e l i e f may be granted. Page I - O P I N I O N A N D O R D E R

BACKGROUND
O n J a n u a r y 2 8 , 2 0 0 9 , A n d e r s o n filed a c o m p l a i n t a n d i n f o r m a p a u p e r i s a p p l i c a t i o n . A n d e r s o n ' s a p p l i c a t i o n i s i n c o m p l e t e i n t h a t he o n l y c o m p l e t e d t h e f i r s t t w o q u e s t i o n s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , A n d e r s o n d i d n o t s i g n h i s application. A n d e r s o n ' s c o m p l a i n t c o n s i s t s entirely o f t h e w o r d "Nonpayment."

LEGAL STANDARDS
F e d e r a l C i v i l P r o c e d u r e R u l e 1 2 ( h ) ( 3 ) p r o v i d e s that " [ i ] f t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s a t a n y t i m e that i t lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court m u s t dismiss t h e action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. lvlusick, 505 F.2d 278, 2 8 0 ( 9 t h Cil'. 1974) ( " I t 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 for 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 a r e 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 the c o n t r a t y rests u p o n t h e p a t t y asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. o fA m . , 511 U.S. 3 7 5 , 3 7 7 (1994). A court m u s t sua sponte dismiss a n in f o r m a pauperis action that fails t o state a claim u p o n w h i c h r e l i e f c a n be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A COUlt should dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim u n d e r Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) i f the complaint does n o t "raise a right to r e l i e f above the speculative level o n the assumption t h a t all the allegations i n the complaint are true." B e l l At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted) ( f o o t n o t e omitted). I n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g a p l a i n t i f f p r o c e e d i n g p r o se, t h i s c o u r t c o n s t r u e s t h e p l e a d i n g s liberally and affords the p l a i n t i f f the benefit o f any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. Los A n g e l e s

Police Dep't., 839 F . 2 d 6 2 1 , 6 2 3 (9th Cil'. 1988). T h a t is, COUtts hold p r o se pleadings to a less
Page 2 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Specifically, a p r o se litigant is entitled to notice o f the deficiencies in the complaint and a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o a m e n d , u n l e s s t h e c o m p l a i n t ' s d e f i c i e n c i e s c a n n o t b e c u r e d b y a m e n d m e n t . See

Karim-Panahi, 8 3 9 F . 2 d a t 6 2 3 - 6 2 4 .
DISCUSSION
Federal courts are courts o f limited j u r i s d i c t i o n and cannot hear evelY dispute presented by litigants. See Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes o f the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). A federal district court is e m p o w e r e d to hear only t h o s e cases that are w i t h i n the j u d i c i a l p o w e r conferred by t h e U n i t e d States Constitution and those that fall within t h e area o f j u r i s d i c t i o n granted by Congress. Richardson v. United States, 943 F.2d 1107, 1 1 1 2 - 1 3 ( 9 t h C i r . 1991). O r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n m u s t b e b a s e d e i t h e r o n a c l a i m i n v o l v i n g t h e Constitution, laws, o r treaties o f the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or o n diversity o f c i t i z e n s h i p , w h i c h a p p l i e s to s u i t s t o t a l i n g m o r e t h a n $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 i n c o n t r o v e r s y b e t w e e n c i t i z e n s o f different states, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court h a s a continuing duty to dismiss a n action w h e n e v e r i t appears that the court lacks subject m a t t e r jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3);

Billingsley v. Comm'r o f the I R . S . , 868 F.2d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 1989).
I n a d d i t i o n to t h e 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 r e q u i r e m e n t , Federal Civil P r o c e d u r e R u l e 8 provides that: "A p l e a d i n g that states a c l a i m for r e l i e f m u s t contain: (1) a ShOlt and p l a i n statement o f the grounds for the COUlt's jurisdiction, . . . (2) a short and p l a i n statement o f the c l a i m showing that the p l e a d e r is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the r e l i e f sought, w h i c h may include r e l i e f in the alternative or different types o f relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. This COlut does not have subject m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n based o n the facts alleged i n t h e

Page 3 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

complaint. T h e c o m p l a i n t contains no c a u s e o f a c t i o n arising under, o r that contains a n y reference to, any federal statute o r the U.S. Constitution. T h e c o m p l a i n t does n o t indicate A n d e r s o n ' 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 , n o r d o e s it a l l e g e t h a t t h e a m o u n t i n c o n t r o v e r s y requirement h a s b e e n met. A p m t f r o m t h e l a c k o f 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 , A n d e r s o n ' s c o m p l a i n t fails t o s t a t e a c l a i m o n w h i c h r e l i e f m a y b e granted. T h e c o m p l a i n t l a c k s e v e n a m i n i m a l s t a t e m e n t s u g g e s t i n g t h a t A n d e r s o n could be e n t i t l e d to r e l i e f ii'om the n a m e d defendant. T h e complaint also does n o t s e t forth the r e l i e f A n d e r s o n seeks. A s noted above, wherever possible, a c o u r t s h o u l d grant a p r o se p l a i n t i f f leave to amend h i s o r h e r c o m p l a i n t t o c u r e i t s deficiencies. H e r e , A n d e r s o n ' s c o m p l a i n t is d e f i c i e n t i n e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g p m t i c u l a r s : I ) t h e c o m p l a i n t fails t o c o n t a i n a s h o r t and p l a i n s t a t e m e n t o f t h e b a s i s for federal subject m a t t e r jurisdiction; 2) the c o m p l a i n t fails to c o n t a i n a shOlt a n d p l a i n s t a t e m e n t o f t h e f a c t s u n d e r l y i n g A n d e r s o n ' s a l l e g a t i o n o f n o n p a y m e n t ; 3) t h e c o m p l a i n t f a i l s t o c o n t a i n a d e m a n d f o r j u d g m e n t stating p l a i n l y e a c h e l e m e n t o f t h e r e l i e f A n d e r s o n seeks, i n c l u d i n g , i f a p p l i c a b l e , a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the m o n e t a r y d a m a g e s t o w h i c h A n d e r s o n b e l i e v e s h e i s entitled. I n the event A n d e r s o n elects to pursue this action, h e m u s t s u b m i t a completed, signed, in

f o r m a p a u p e r i s a p p l i c a t i o n a n d m u s t a m e n d h i s c o m p l a i n t to c u r e e a c h o f the a b o v e - n o t e d
deficiencies. As cU11'ently drafted, Anderson's c o m p l a i n t does n o t state a basis for this court's j u r i s d i c t i o n , n o r d o e s i t s t a t e a c l a i m u p o n w h i c h r e l i e f m a y b e g r a n t e d , a n d the d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d n o t be required to e x p e n d t i m e a n d o t h e r resources r e s p o n d i n g to it.

P a g e 4 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

CONCLUSION

For all o f the foregoing reasons, plaintiff is directed to file a n amended in/orilla pauperis application, within 30 days o f the date o f this order. Additionally, plaintiff must file an amended complaint, curing the deficiencies noted above, within 30 days o f the date o f this order. In the event that plaintiff fails to file such an amended complaint, this case will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

D a t e d this

Lf

rJYI..
t h d a y o f F e b r u m y , 2009.

U n i t e d States D i s t r i c t Judge

A~

P a g e 5 - O P I N I O N AND O R D E R