Cooke v. 'Doe' et al
Opinion and Order: Because plaintiff's third amended complaint fails to sufficiently allege subject matter jurisdiction and plausibly allege entitlement to relief, this action is dismissed. Signed on 6/9/2017 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (Copy mailed to plaintiff) (cp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
DAVID L. COOKE,
OPINION AND ORDER
REGINA 'DOE'; ZIG 'DOE'; 'JANE DOE2';
On May 25, 2017 prose plaintiff, David Cooke, filed this action "to investigate, address, resolve,
& remedy the theft, remote control, and/or unlawful detention or disappearance of plaintiffs personal
property during the interval from 10/10/2010 to the present." Amended Complaint (#4) at p. 5. On June
1, 2017, the court denied plaintiffs application for in forma pauperis (IFP) status and ordered plaintiff to
pay the filing fee. In addition, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to allege subject matter
jurisdiction and to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. The court advised plaintiff that a failure to pay the
filing fee and/or file an amended complaint as ordered would result in the dismissal of this action.
On June 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a second application for IFP status. Although it appears plaintiff
can afford the costs of litigation, out of an abundance of caution, the application is granted and the case
may proceed without payment of the filing fee.
On June 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On June 8, 2017, plaintiff filed a
third amended complaint. The amendments do not cure the deficiencies noted in the court's iune 1,
1 - OPINION AND ORDER
2017 order. The third amended complaint fails to specifically identify any defendant, or link any
damage suffered by plaintiff to any alleged acts taken ostensibly pursuant to any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory. At best, plaintiff offers mere conclusions that:
unidentified defendant John Doe2 had "the authority of ... a current and/or retired police chief, as well
as ... the local fire marshal [and] claiming to have the authority of the office of the President of the
United States of America"; defendants "acted under color of criminal court"; and the defendants'
activities "comprises clearly established customs and policies, and procedures of Defendants under color
oflaw." Third Amended Complaint (#9) at pp. 1, 3. There are no allegations connecting any
governmental authority bestowed upon defendants to the alleged deprivations suffered by plaintiff.
Moreover, plaintiff still fails to allege facts demonstrating violation of a federal or constitutional right.
Accordingly, plaintiff fails to cure the deficiencies in the complaint as ordered by the court. Moreover,
because the defendants cannot be identified, it is clear that further amendment cannot cure the
Because plaintiff's third amended complaint fails to sufficiently allege subject matter jurisdiction
and plausibly allege entitlement to relief, this action is dismissed.
This action is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this _j_ day of June 2017.
Michael J. McShane
United States District Judge
2 - 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?