Denton v. Agents of the State of Oregon
Filing
7
OPINION & ORDER: The court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within thirty days of the date below. Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (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, pro se, brings this action against a number of business entities and
individuals collectively totaling fifty-one defendants. For the reasons set forth below, I find that
sua sponte dismissal of this action is warranted.
1 - OPINION & ORDER
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
$75,000.1 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
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.
1
“The essential elements of diversity jurisdiction, including the diverse residence of all parties,
must be affirmatively alleged in the pleadings.” Bautista v. Pan Am. World Airlines, Inc., 828
F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). Plaintiff’s amended complaint makes no effort
to establish that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over his claims. Plaintiff fails to allege the
citizenship of any of the defendants. In fact, the amended complaint indicates that at least some
of the defendants share the same state of domicile as plaintiff. Furthermore, the amended
complaint does not allege the amount in controversy, let alone that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. Consequently, plaintiff fails to establish that this Court has diversity
jurisdiction over his claims.
2 - OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is confusing and consists almost exclusively of vague and
conclusory allegations. It appears, however, that plaintiff alleges this court has federal question
jurisdiction. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants “acted as
Agent(s) of the State of Oregon in Plaintiff(s) [sic] Violations of U. S. [sic], Constitutional
Rights including and specific to Article(s) [sic] 1,4,5,6,9 and 14 of the Amendments to the U. S.
[sic] Constitution.” Am. Compl., p. 1. It further alleges that plaintiff’s “constitutional right to
Due Process [sic] has been infringed upon” because his “current Divorce [sic] proceedings have
been . . . bad” and because he has been “unable to fight in Court to see and gain custody of [his]
Children [sic]” where he has been “wiped . . . out financially”. Id., ¶ I. Plaintiff also alleges that
“Comcast Cable used the DVR’s to monitor [his] home without [his] permission”, thereby
invading his right to privacy. Id., ¶ E.
To the extent plaintiff’s amended complaint is intelligible, I find that it has no discernible
basis in law or fact, contains no cognizable legal theories or facts to support any alleged legal
theory, and most important, contains no comprehensible claim for relief conferring federal
question jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s cursory and fleeting references to constitutional provisions and
federal issues are simply insufficient 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”); see also Grable & Sons
Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005) (“[T]he presence of a
disputed federal issue and the ostensible importance of a federal forum are never necessarily
dispositive; there must always be an assessment of any disruptive portent in exercising federal
jurisdiction.”) (Citation omitted). Simply stated, plaintiff’s conclusory allegations, bare citation
3 - OPINION & ORDER
to the Constitution, and passing references to federal issues are insufficient to establish subject
matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, I find that dismissal of Plaintiff’s amended complaint is proper.
CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons above, I conclude that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this action. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within thirty
days of the date below.
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?