Wang v. Does

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER - This action is dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. Signed on 11/20/2012 by Judge Garr M. King. (pc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
Civil Case No. 3:12-CV-01858-KI

Tracy Wang,
Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
1020 SW 170th Ave. #200, 203
Beaverton, OR,
Defendants.

Tracy Wang
16055 SW Walker Rd. 182
Beaverton, OR 97006
Pro Se Plaintiff
KING, Judge:
On October 16, 2012, plaintiff Tracy Wang filed a Complaint against unknown parties
with the address of 1020 SW 170th Ave. #200, Beaverton, OR 97006, alleging only “1st

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER

Amendment–Invasion of Privacy (at home)” without any statement of facts in support of her
claim. On October 30, 2012, I granted her Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, denied
her Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel, and dismissed her complaint without
prejudice. I granted her leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of the
Order.
Wang has now filed a document entitled “Narrative facts.” I have reviewed Wang’s
complaint and I conclude that it fails to identify a proper basis for this court’s jurisdiction.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by
Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994). This court has subject matter jurisdiction only if the complaint alleges a claim arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, or if the parties are citizens of
different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).
The complaint “must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Furthermore, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Wang’s three-page single space narrative describes all of the places she used to live, and
all of the noisy neighbors who prompted her to move. She reports she has lived in twelve places
over nine years. She suggests a “conspiracy between the landlords that staff or the next
extremely noisy group is in an adjoining . . . unit to mine.” Narrative facts 2. She asks that I give
notice to her current neighbors to move, or at least notice to prohibit them from communicating
through her walls day and night.
For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Wang’s citizenship must differ from defendants’
Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

citizenship, and the matter in controversy must exceed $75,000. Wang fails to identify the
citizenship of the parties. Nevertheless, her address is in Oregon and she appears to be
attempting to sue neighbors who also live in Oregon. Wang does not allege any damage from the
defendants’ actions. She cannot base this court’s jurisdiction on diversity.
As for federal question jurisdiction, no claim brought by Wang involves any application
of federal constitutional or statutory law. See Murphey v. Lanier, 204 F.3d 911, 912 (9th Cir.
2000) (generally if federal law creates the cause of action, federal jurisdiction exists). Moreover,
Wang does not allege facts supporting a constitutional violation or that any conduct was taken
under color of state law within the meaning of Section 1983. Private parties do not generally act
under color of state law, Price v. State of Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991), and
Wang does not allege any conduct on defendants’ part which suggests that defendants’ actions
were state actions.
The existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction must be apparent on the face of the
complaint. Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998). Since this court lacks
federal subject matter jurisdiction, and since Wang cannot cure this defect, her case is dismissed
without prejudice and without leave to amend.
///
///

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without leave to
amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

20th

day of November, 2012.

/s/ Garr M. King
Garr M. King
United States District Judge

Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER