Farmer et al v. Passages treatment center's of malibu
ORDER TO DISMISS: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED for apparent lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint, curing the deficiencies noted above, within 30 days of the date of this order. Failure to file an Amended Complaint shall result in the dismissal of this proceeding. Amended Complaint is due 3/8/2018. Signed on 2/6/2018 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (joha)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
DENICE SHALA JOY FARMER;
SARAH RODGERS; ARIANNA
BUTCHER; and TAMMY PENNINGTON,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01515-AC
ORDER TO DISMISS
PASSAGES TREATMENT CENTERS
Plaintiff Denice Shala Joy Farmer, an inmate at the Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, brings
this civil action pro se. 1 Pursuant to an order entered this date, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. However, for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs Complaint is
Pursuant to an Order entered this date, the Court dismissed the remaining three Plaintiffs
from this action for failure to prosecute.
1 - ORDER TO DISMISS -
Plaintiff alleges that her claim is based on "false advertising saying passages cures
addiction." In support of her claim, she alleges as follows:
All passages commercials claim to cure addiction. You cannot cure addiction. There
is no medical sientifical [sic] cure for alcoholism or drug addiction. Thus leading to
false advertisement. On[e] commercial states I was an addict now I'm not. We are
all overly thinking of this place because all we want is to be cured of addiction.
By way of remedy, Plaintiff seeks $5 million in money damages "for false hope."
A district court must dismiss an action initiated by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis
if the court determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In order to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege facts which, when
accepted as true, give rise to a plausible inference that the defendants violated the plaintiffs rights.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57
(2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 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; Moss v. US. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). "A pleading that offers
labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotations omitted).
When a plaintiff is proceedingpro se, the court construes the pleadings liberally and affords
the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). A prose plaintiff
2 - ORDER TO DISMISS -
will be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is clear that the deficiencies of the
complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1112, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).
"'Federal courts are courts oflimitedjurisdiction,' possessing 'only that power authorized
by Constitution and statute." Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. ofAmerica, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Federal jurisdiction may be based
uponthepresenceofafederalquestionorondiversityofcitizenship. 28U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. To
invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff must plead that the defendant has violated some
constitutional or statutory provision. To establish diversity jurisdiction, a plaintiff must allege that
he or she is a citizen of one state, that all of the defendants are citizens of other states, and that the
damages are more than $75,000.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff does not indicate any basis for jurisdiction. She alleges "false
advertising" against a private entity, but does not alleges facts establishing citizenship. As such, this
Court lacks diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff also cites no federal constitutional, statutory, or treaty
right at issue. 2 Because Plaintiff fails to identify a basis for federal jurisdiction, this Court lacks
If subject matter is based on the existence of a federal question, a plaintiff must show she
has alleged a claim for relief arising under federal law and that the claim is not frivolous. To the
extent Plaintiffs Complaint may be liberally construed as an attempt to state a violation of section
43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(l )(B), which "forbids the use of ... false descriptions
in the advertising and sale of goods and services," Plaintiff fails to plead facts establishing the five
elements of such a claim:
( 1) a false statement of fact by the defendant in a commercial advertisement about its
own or another's product; (2) the statement actually deceived or has the tendency to
deceive a substantial segment of its audience; (3) the deception is material, in that is
likely to influence the purchasing decision; (4) the defendant caused its false
statement to enter interstate commerce; and (5) the plaintiff has been or is likely to
3 - ORDER TO DISMISS -
subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (court is
required to dismiss an action if the court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction); see also
Butler v. Forest Grove Police Department, Case No. 3: 16-cv-02403-SI, 2017 WL 57129 (D. Or. Jan.
4, 2017) (dismissing Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED for
apparent lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint, curing the deficiencies
noted above, within 30 days of the date of this order. Failure to file an Amended Complaint shall
result in the dismissal of this proceeding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
~ay of~, 201 r.
United States District Judge
be injured as a result of the false statement.
Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 1997).
4 - ORDER TO DISMISS -
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?