Louie v. Brewer et al

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (AY, Case Administrator)

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

1

Oct 23, 2015

2

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3
4

JOHN (ENWILST) LOUIE,

No. 2:15-CV-0292-SMJ

5
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING CASE

6
v.
7

10

JENELLE RENEE BREWER;
BENARD VALCOURT; LAURIE
CHARLESWORTH; BYRON
MICHAEL; JOSEPH LOUIS; LYLE
WILLIAM BREWER; and any
interested party,

11

Defendants.

8
9

12
After reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, and the relevant legal
13
authority, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
14
Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint sua sponte and without
15
prejudice.
16
Plaintiff John Louie filed his pro se complaint on October 20, 2015. ECF
17
No. 1. It appears that Plaintiff believes that he is the sole heir-at-law of his
18
deceased brother, Jimmie Louie. Attached to the complaint are a number of
19
documents:
20

ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

 A letter from the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
(AANDC) to Defendant Jenelle Renee Brewer informing her that her
application to serve as executor of the decedent’s estate was approved by
the Minister of Indian Affairs. ECF No. 1 at 3-4.
 Plaintiff’s notarized affidavit challenging the decedent’s will. ECF No. 1
at 5-11.
 Plaintiff’s notarized affidavit pursuant to the Canada Indian Act, R.S.C.,
1985, c. I-5, explaining the factual basis for his challenge to the decedent’s
will. ECF No. 1 at 13-15.
 A copy of the decedent’s death certificate. ECF No. 1 at 16.
 A printout of the Wikipedia page describing renal failure. ECF No. 1 at
17.
 A printout of the Wikipedia page describing cirrhosis. ECF No. 1 at 18.
 A printout of the Wikipedia page describing alcohol-related dementia.
ECF No. 1 at 19-20.
 An order of prohibition showing that the decedent was convicted of
driving under the influence of alcohol or a drug in 1993 in British
Columbia. ECF No. 1 at 21.
 A memo to the decedent dated June 3, 2010 stating 6 concerns with what
appears to be his job performance. EDF No. 1 at 22.
 A pharmacy’s list of the decedent’s prescriptions. ECF No. 1 at 23-24.
 A document containing photocopies of receipts and a handwritten note.
ECF No. 1 at 25.
 A laboratory form showing that the lab suspects that the decedent had
“alcohol liver disease”. ECF No. 1 at 26-27.
 A document scheduling an ultrasound for the decedent. ECF No. 1 at 2829.
 A record from Canada Post showing that a piece of mail was received and
signed for. ECF No. 1 at 30.
 A record from Canada Post showing that a second piece of mail was
received and signed for. ECF No. 1 at 31.
 A record from Canada Post showing that a third piece of mail was
received and signed for. ECF No. 1 at 32.
 A record from Canada Post showing that a fourth piece of mail was
received and signed for. ECF No. 1 at 32.
 A letter from Defendant Laurie Charlesworth, Senior Estates Officer for
AANDC, to Plaintiff. The letter indicates that the agency has received
Plaintiff’s documentation in support of his application to have the

ORDER - 2

1
2



3



4

5
6



7

decedent’s will voided and requests mailing addresses for listed interested
individuals. ECF No. 1 at 33.
Plaintiff’s response to Defendant Charlesworth’s letter. ECF No. 1 at 3436.
A letter from Dan Wilson, Councilor for the Okanagan Indian Band, to
Plaintiff requesting additional time to respond to documents sent to him.
ECF No. 1 at 37.
A letter from Plaintiff to Defendant Charlesworth purporting to grant the
1-month extension requested by Wilson to respond to his documents. ECF
No. 1 at 38.
A handwritten document listing the word “fax” or “mail”, each
defendant’s name, a date, and Plaintiff’s initials. ECF No. 1 at 39. This
appears to be Plaintiff’s attempt to show that he served his complaint on
each defendant.

8
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
9
Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Original jurisdiction must be based
10
either on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or on a claim involving
11
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
12
1331. When a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction the court must
13
dismiss the complaint, sua sponte if necessary. Pistor v. Garcia, 791 F.3d 1104,
14
1111 (9th Cir. 2015).
15
Every complaint filed in federal court must contain a short and plain
16
statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, the claim showing the
17
claimant is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P.
18
8(a).
19
Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a).

There is no plain

20
statement of the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction in the complaint. See ECF No. 1

ORDER - 3

1

at 1-2. In the civil cover sheet filed with his complaint, Plaintiff asserts that this

2

court has jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.

3

Plaintiff lists addresses in Canada for himself and all the defendants. ECF No. 1

4

at 5.

5

defendants are citizens or subjects of a foreign state. ECF No. 1-1 at 1. No

6

diversity jurisdiction exists where, as here, a citizen of a foreign state sues a

7

citizen or citizens of a foreign state. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

ECF No. 1-1.

But

And, also in the civil cover sheet, Plaintiff indicates that he and the

8

Likewise, Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a short and plain statement

9

of his claim or a demand for the relief sought. See ECF No. 1 at 1-2. It appears

10

that Plaintiff challenges the will of his brother, a member of Canada’s First

11

Nations, and the related actions of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

12

Canada and its employees. While the Court cannot be sure of much based on this

13

complaint, the Court is sure that this is not a dispute arising under the

14

Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United States. There is no federal question

15

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

16

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. It is absolutely

17

clear that these deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. So while the

18

Court usually permits pro se litigants the opportunity to amend prior to dismissal,

19

the Court declines to do so here. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir.

20

ORDER - 4

1

1987); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.

2

1988).

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

4

1.

Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

5

2.

The Clerk’s Office is directed to CLOSE this file.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order

7
8

and forward a copy to Plaintiff.
DATED this 23rd day of October 2015.

9
____________________________________
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Q:\SMJ\Civil\2015\Louie v. Brewer et al-0292\ord.dismiss.smj.lc1.docx

ORDER - 5