Alspa v. Washington County Juvenile Hall

Filing 10

OPINION & ORDER: This case is Dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed on 5/9/13 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON LUTHER RAYMOND ALSPA, Plaintiff, 3: 13-cv-00496-PK OPINION AND ORDER WASHINGTON COUNTY JUVENILE HALL, Defendant. MOSMAN,J., PlaintitiLuther Raymond Alspa, appearing prose, filed this action against the Washington County Juvenile Hall. Alspa's complaint appears to relate to the removal of five children from their mother's custody. For the reasons set forth below, this action is dismissed with prejudice. Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER BACKGROUND Alspa filed his original complaint in this action on March 21, 2013. He alleged that "five children were involuntarily taken from their natural mother," and he seeks relief on behalf of the children and their mother. On April3, 2013, this comt allowed Alspa to proceed infonna pauperis, but also ordered him to show cause why this case should not be dismissed pmsuant to FRCP 28 U.S. C.§ 1915(d)(2) for failure to state a claim. In particular, Alspa was ordered to identifY 1) the species of his claim; 2) the identities of the children named in the complaint and his relationship to them; and 3) the basis and authority under which he should be allowed to proceed as plaintiff in this case. On May I, 2013, AI spa wrote a letter to the court which I construe as his response to this court's order to show cause. He defines the "specifics of this claim" as follows: [T]he Constitutional Rights of the children held in "involuntary Servitude" before the Thirteenth Amendment, and violating the Civil Rights of the children according to the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Civil Rights of the natural mother to asce1tain the religion she will provide to the children. Impacting the children's First Amendment [right] to worship with their mother's council at their heart. (#9 at p. 2.) Alspa adds, "I will enter on the Eleventh Amendment and proceed to the Thhteenth; then to the Fourteenth and ente1tain the First Amendment and the Sixth and balm this crucified woman." (Id. at p. 3.) Finally, Alspa explains "I stand in Intervention for five children," and "I am merely the prognastator of this alliance between mother and child." (Id. at p. 4.) Alspa is not related to the children or their mother. LEGAL STANDARD Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(h)(3) provides that "[i]fthe court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the comt must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER 12(h)(3); see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. 1Vfusick, 505 F.2d 278,280 (9'h Cir. 1974) ("It has been long held that a judge can dismiss sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction"). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil cases and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardia Life Ins. Co. ofAm., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). "[S]tanding is an aspect of subject matter jurisdiction." Fleck and Assocs., Inc. v. City ofPhoenix, 471 F.3d 110, 1107 n. 4 (9'h Cir. 2006). "[F]ederal courts liberally construe the 'inattful pleading' of prose litigants." Ferdik v. Bonze let, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9'h Cir. 1992); see also Karin-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9'h Cir. 1988). That is, comts hold prose pleadings to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520 (1972). DISCUSSION The general prose provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1654 allows Alspa to prosecute his own claims, but he is not allowed to brings claims on behalf of the five children and mother he references in his complaint. "Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. He has no authority to appear as an attomey for others than himself." C. E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9'h Cir. 1987). Because Alspa cannot present claims on behalf of the five children and their mother, and because Alspa does not asse11 a claim of his own, he lacks standing to pursue this matter. A prose litigant is generally entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. See Karin-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 623-24 .. Here, dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is appropriate Page 3 -OPINION AND ORDER because the lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction is incurable. See Orsay v. US. Dep 't ofJustice, 289 F.3d 1125, 1136 (9'h Cir. 2002). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this case is dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dated this .1 ~of May 2013. day M~ MICHAEL W. M N United States District Judge Page 4 - OPINION AND 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?