Bobo v. County of Fresno
Filing
6
Opinion and Order: As the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and as plaintiff's claim is barred by the statute of limitations, this action must be dismissed. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
CHARLES BOBO,
Plaintiff,
Case. No. 6:14-cv-01070-MC.
OPINION AND ORDER
V.
CITY OF FRESNO,
Defendant.
MCSHANE, Judge:
Pro se plaintiff Charles Bobo seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The Court,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), must screen applications to proceed IFP and dismiss any
case that is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Additionally, the Court has an ongoing duty to assess its own subject-matter jurisdiction. Allstate
Ins. Co. V Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2004). As there is clearly no federal question
in this dispute over placement and remainder of plaintiff's daughter in foster care, I first examine
1 -OPINION AND ORDER
·,
the question of whether this Court has diversity jurisdiction. I then tum to the ripeness and the
merits of the complaint.
. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that this court has jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of parties. As
relevant here, the district court shall have diversity jurisdiction in a civil action where the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between:
(1)
citizens of different states;
(2)
citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state;
(3)
citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign
state are additional parties.
l
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Lew v. Moss,
797 F.2d 747, 749 (9 1h Cir. 1986). To demonstrate citizenship (for diversity purposes), a party
must be a citizen of the United States and domiciled in a state. Id. A domicile is the place the
party has establisned a fixed habitation or abode with the intention of remaining permanently or
indefinitely.Jd. at 749-50. A'party's former domicile is not lost until a new domicile is acquired.
Id. at 750.
Based on the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff resides in Eugene, Oregon, and
Defendant County of Fresno resides in Fresno, CA. However, it is unclear if plaintiff is
r·
domiciled in Oregon or not. Letters from defendant to plaintiff list different California addresses
for plaintiff, which do not establish a fixed place of habitation. Plaintiff also lists a post office
box for his Oregon address, which is not a permanent abode and not sufficient proof of domicile.
See Smith v. Breakthrough Int'l, 12-CV -0183:2-WHO, 2013
2- OPINION AND ORDER
1
~L
4731245, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept.
3, 2013). Though plaintiff may currently be residing in Oregon, "[a] person residing in a given
state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state." Kanter
v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Therefore, plaintiffhas failed to meet
his burden of establishing that this court has diversity jurisdiction. As it appears this Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the action must be dismissed. Allstate Ins. Co., 358 F.3d at 1095. ·
A dismissal in district court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction does not limit
plaintiffs right to proceed in a state court of general jurisdiction. However, even if plaintiff
wanted to move forward with this complaint in state court, plaintiffs claim is barred by the
statute oflimitations. I construe plaintiffs complaint as a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1983.
"Oregon's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to § 1983 claims."
1
Cooper v. City ofAshland, lOS (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (citing O.R.S. § 12.110(1)) (internal
citations omitted). Because plaintiff alleges that the conduct leading to the complaint occurred in
2005, and because plaintiff has not had any further contact with defendant since 2007, plaintiffs
complaint does not fall within the two""'year statute of limitations.
Lastly, it is worth noting that even if plaintiff could proceed forward with this complaint,
he has not stated a claim on which relief can be granted. "To state a claim under § 1983, the
plaintiff must allege a violation of his constitutional rights and show that the defendant's actions
were taken under color of state law." Gritchen v. Collier, 254 F .3d 807, 812 (9th Cir. 2001 ).
Though a parent may have a fundamental right to determine how his or her child is raised, this
.
-
right is barred if the parent is unwilling to spend funds or time caring for said child. See
Lipscomb By & Through DeFehr v. Simmons, 962 F.2d 1374, 1379 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff was
unaware ofhis daughter's placement in foster care,and prior to notification by defendant, made
no efforts to interact, with her despite ;m alleged court order allowing him joint custody. Since the
3 -OPINION AND ORDER
state took custody of his daughter, plaintifflost his custodial rights. Therefore, defendant could
not interfere with plaintiffs fundamental. rights because plaintiff no longer possesses said rights .
..
As the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and as plaintiffs claim is barred by the
statute of limitations, this action must be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED .
. DATED this]\ day of July, 2014.
'
{
Michael McShane
United States District Judge
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?