Denton v. Agents of the State of Oregon
Filing
32
OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's second amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Pending motions, if any, are denied as moot. See 4-page opinion & order attached. Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. Copy mailed to plaintiff on 12/19/2012. (mr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
JOHN W. DENTON,
Plaintiff,
No. 3:12-cv-00022-HZ
OPINION & ORDER
v.
AGENTS OF THE STATE OF OREGON,
et al.,
Defendants.
John W. Denton
6611 SW Terri Ct., #29
Portland, OR 97225
Pro Se Plaintiff
HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
John W. Denton (“Plaintiff”), pro se, filed a complaint and a first amended complaint
against fifty-one defendants, including a number of business entities and individuals. On
October 29, 2012, I issued an Opinion & Order dismissing Plaintiff’s first amended complaint
1 - OPINION & ORDER
sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s allegations were
unintelligible, had no discernible basis in law or fact, and contained no comprehensible claim for
relief conferring subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff was given leave to amend within thirty
days. On November 21, 2012, Plaintiff timely filed a second amended complaint against some
of the same defendants and new defendants, alleging both similar and new factual allegations.
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint remains unintelligible and lacks any discernible
basis in law or fact conferring subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, I find that sua sponte
dismissal of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is proper.
DISCUSSION
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and a case is presumed to fall
outside a federal court’s jurisdiction unless the party asserting jurisdiction establishes otherwise.
E.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted).
A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] has subjectmatter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation
omitted). “[A] court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time
during the pendency of the action”. Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir.
2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
A federal district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action when: (1) a federal
question is presented in an action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States” or (2) there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). “The presence or absence of federal-question
jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal
jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly
2 - OPINION & ORDER
pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (citing Gully v. First
Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112-113 (1936)). “The rule makes the plaintiff the master of the
claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Id.
Like Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to
allege the citizenship of any of the defendants, and in fact continues to indicate that at least some
of the defendants share the same state of domicile as Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to
plead facts invoking diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint also fails to plead facts supporting federal question
jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges that defendants collectively “acted as Agent(s) [sic] of the State of
Oregon in Plaintiff(s) [sic] Violations [sic] of U.S. Constitutional Rights including and specific
to Articles(s) [sic] 1,4,5,6,9 and 14 of the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.” Second Am.
Compl., p. 1. The factual allegations supporting Plaintiff’s claims for relief, however, remain
confusing and vague. In addition, the second amended complaint continues to lack sufficient
facts supporting Plaintiff’s conclusory constitutional violations. Plaintiff’s bare citation to the
Constitution and vague and conclusory allegations fail to establish the requisite subject matter
jurisdiction. See Gully, 299 U.S. at 117 (the fact that a question of federal or constitutional law
is “lurking in the background” is “unavailing to extinguish the jurisdiction of the states”).
Because it is clear that the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint cannot be cured
by amendment, I find that dismissal of this action with prejudice is proper. Silva v. Di Vittorio,
658 F.3d 1090, 1106 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is
proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by
amendment.”) (Citation omitted).
3 - OPINION & ORDER
CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons above, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed with
prejudice. Pending motions, if any, are denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this
day of ____________, 2012.
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge
4 - OPINION & ORDER
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?