Bray v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development et al

Filing 6

Findings and Recommendation and Order: Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (# 2 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's application for CM/ECF Registration (# 3 ) is DENIED. This action should be DISMISSED, without service of pro cess, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A judgment should be entered dismissing the action without prejudice. This Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge . Objections, if any, are due December 5, 2016. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement. Signed on 11/16/2016 by Magistrate Judge John Jelderks. (jtj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JEFFREY BRAY

) Civil No.: 3:16-cv-1980-JE
)
Plaintiff,
) FINDINGS AND
) RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
)
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, )
ALASKA USA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, )
AMERICAN AIRLINES,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________
)

JELDERKS, Magistrate Judge:
Pro se Plaintiff Jeffrey Bray brings this action against the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Alaska USA Federal Credit Union and American
Airlines. Plaintiff’s Complaint comprises a court-provided Complaint form, an attached
photocopy of a hand-written Statement of Claim, a photocopy of an American Airlines
membership card bearing Plaintiff’s name, a photocopy of what appears to be a page from
Plaintiff’s armed forces enlistment application, an “Agreement to Mediate” form signed by
Plaintiff and a rent statement from Plymouth Housing Group. Plaintiff has applied to proceed in
forma pauperis and has submitted an application for CM/ECF registration.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER – 1

Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and his application for
CM/ECF registration is denied. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Complaint should be
dismissed, without service of process, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and on the basis that
it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See FRCP 12(h)(3); 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
Background
On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint and applied to proceed in
forma pauperis. As an initial matter, the court notes that on the first page of his Complaint,
Plaintiff references a case he previously filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington against the HUD’s Alaska Area Office. The Court takes judicial notice
that Plaintiff filed his Complaint in that case on August 29, 2016 and the case was dismissed in
an Order dated September 27, 2016. A review of Western District of Washington’s Order of
Dismissal reveals that the Complaint before this court reiterates many of the same allegations
and claims set forth in the Western District of Washington case.
Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks clarity but appears to allege that his attempts to secure Native
Alaskan Section 8 Housing were thwarted due to HUD’s Alaska Area office in Seattle being
“unsanitary” and inaccessible because of the presence of a “Norwegian Cruise Ship.” Compl. at
5, 9. Plaintiff also alleges that “the 2nd incident occurred when I deposited a check for $3,000.00
some odd dollars into my bank, and they took out the check amount I deposited.” Id. at 5.
Plaintiff also asserts that the post office on the first floor of the HUD Alaska Area office is
“always stealing and switching up my Visa/Master Card request in ref. to a United States Coast
Guard Master Card for the 13th District – that’s the Native Alaskan Jurisdiction.” Id. at 9

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER – 2

Plaintiff seeks an “accurate bank reconciliation of the money they stole out of my bank,”
a “Veteran’s Administration Special Single House Grant,” “Native Alaskan Gov. benefits,” “40
hours five days a week” work at the Chinook Seafood Restaurant and other forms of relief which
the Court finds difficult to ascertain with any specificity.
Discussion
Under 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B), a complaint filed in forma pauperis must be dismissed
before service of process if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
In order to state a viable claim, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see
also, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)(specifically applying Twombly analysis beyond the
context of the Sherman Act). This means the complaint must contain “factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation and citation omitted). The complaint must
contain “well-pleaded facts” which “permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct.” Id. The court must liberally construe a pro se plaintiff’s complaint and permit
amendment unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. KarimPanahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623-624 (9th Cir. 1988).
Regardless of how liberally Plaintiff’s Complaint is construed, it fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. First, Plaintiff does not cite any law or state a cause of action
that would provide a basis for this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. Federal
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and are presumed to lack jurisdiction over a case unless
proven otherwise. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER – 3

Federal district courts may hear only those cases that are within the judicial power conferred by
the United States Constitution or by statute. Richardson v. United States, 943 F.2d 1107, 111213 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 936, 112 S.Ct. 1473 (1992). Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(h) requires this court to dismiss an action “[w]henever it appears by suggestion of
the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter.” See also
Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). A court may dismiss an action
sua sponte if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v.
Musick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974).
Second, the Complaint fails to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see also Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41, 47 (1957) (complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests”). Although Plaintiff attempts to describe the relief he seeks,
after a careful review of the Complaint, I am unable to discern from Plaintiff’s narrative any
clear or coherent claim upon which relief could be granted. In addition, Plaintiff has named, as
parties to this action, entities against which he has failed to make any allegations or assert any
claim. Accordingly, dismissal is warranted as to these Defendants.
I am unable to discern from Plaintiff’s allegations any basis for subject matter jurisdiction
in this court, or any claim having an arguable basis in law or fact. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Complaint should be dismissed. Although it appears doubtful that the defects in Plaintiff’s
Complaint can be cured by amendment, dismissal should be without prejudice.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (# 2) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s
application for CM/ECF Registration (#3) is DENIED. This action should be DISMISSED,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER – 4

without service of process, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. A judgment should be entered dismissing the action without
prejudice.
Scheduling Order
This Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections,
if any, are due December 5, 2016. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and
Recommendation will go under advisement on that date.
If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 days after being served with
a copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the
Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement.
DATED this 16th day of November, 2016.

/s/ John Jelderks
John Jelderks
U.S. Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER – 5