Njoku v. Evergreen Sales and Lease

Filing 4

ORDER dismissing complaint without prejudice to filing an amended complaint within 21 days of this order. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) cc: plaintiff via the USPS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

IKE NJOKU,

CASE NO. C17-0282JLR
Plaintiff,

11
v.

ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT

12
13

EVERGREEN SALES AND
LEASE,

14

Defendant.

15
Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Ike Njoku’s complaint (Compl. (Dkt. # 3))
16
against Defendant Evergreen Sales and Lease (“Evergreen”). The court previously
17
granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. # 2). For the reasons set
18
forth below, the court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff may
19
file an amended complaint within 21 days of the filing date of this order.
20
Plaintiff alleges that he and Evergreen had a “spoken agreement” concerning the
21
sale of A 2006 Range Rover Sport SUV for $12,000.00. (Comp. at 2.) Plaintiff alleges
22

ORDER - 1

1

that he gave Evergreen $12,000.00 “as a down payment” for the vehicle. (Id.) Plaintiff

2

also alleges that Evergreen “refused to return [the] down payment[,] calling it a deposit

3

and saying there are no refunds on deposits.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts a claim in fraud. (Id.)

4

The court also liberally construes Plaintiff’s complaint to assert a claim for breach of

5

contract. See United States v. Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) in U.S. Currency, 860

6

F.2d 1511, 1513 (9th Cir. 1988) (“We have consistently held in this circuit that courts

7

should liberally construe the pleadings and efforts of pro se litigants . . . .”). Plaintiff

8

seeks the return of his “down payment of $12,000.[00].” (Compl. at 3.) Finally, on the

9

Civil Cover Sheet, Plaintiff acknowledges that he is a citizen of Washington and that

10

Evergreen is incorporated in Washington or has its principal place of business in

11

Washington. (Civil Cover Sheet (Dkt. # 1-2) at 1.)

12

A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis is subject to a

13

mandatory sua sponte review and dismissal to the extent that it (1) “is frivolous or

14

malicious,” (2) “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or (3) “seeks

15

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.

16

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that

17

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) applies to both prisoners and non-prisoners proceeding in

18

forma pauperis); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e)

19

not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint

20

that fails to state a claim.”). As noted above, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the

21

court construes his pleadings liberally. See Bernhardt v. L.A. Cty., 339 F.3d 920, 925

22

ORDER - 2

1

(9th Cir. 2003). Nonetheless, the court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a

2

claim for relief because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as discussed below.

3

Federal district courts are “courts of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that

4

power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs.,

5

Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). The party invoking jurisdiction must allege facts that

6

establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.

7

555, 561 (1992). If a federal court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction at

8

any time during a dispute, the court must dismiss the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3);

9

Rosales v. United States, 824 F.2d 799, 803 n.4 (9th Cir. 1987).

10

Plaintiff fails to allege facts that establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

11

On his Civil Cover Sheet, Plaintiff checks the box averring that the court has jurisdiction

12

because the United States government is the plaintiff. (See Civil Cover Sheet at 1.)

13

Inasmuch as Mr. Njoku is the plaintiff in this action, his allegation that the United States

14

government is the plaintiff is not true. In the “Jurisdiction” section of his form

15

complaint, Plaintiff simply states “other fraud.” (Compl. at 3.) Asserting a claim for

16

common law fraud is not a valid basis for asserting this court’s subject matter jurisdiction

17

either.

18

In general, federal court subject matter jurisdiction exists when either (1) a claim

19

arises under federal law, or (2) a lawsuit arises between citizens of different states and the

20

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-32; see also Erwin

21

Chemerinsky, FEDERAL JURISDICTION § 5.1 (5th ed. 2001) (listing other

22

non-exhaustive categories of subject matter jurisdiction). Plaintiff’s complaint fails to

ORDER - 3

1

establish either federal question or diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. First, Plaintiff

2

alleges no federal cause of action, and indeed no facts that can be construed to support a

3

federal cause of action. (See generally Compl.) Second, Plaintiff asserts that the parties

4

are citizens of the same state: Washington. See 28 U.S.C. 1332; Morris v. Princess

5

Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Section 1332 requires complete

6

diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than

7

each of the defendants.”); (see Civil Cover Sheet at 1). In addition, he seeks only

8

$12,000.00—well under the required jurisdictional amount of $75,000.00. Therefore, the

9

court must dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 1

10

However, the court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint in order to

11

correct the deficiencies described above. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248

12

(9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect,

13

however, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an

14

opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.”); Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 688,

15

683 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s amended complaint must correct the deficiencies

16

noted above and properly allege some basis for federal court subject matter jurisdiction.

17

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a

18

short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court

19

already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support.”).

20
21
22

1

State courts are courts of general jurisdiction. See Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. v.
Pac. Nw. Power Co., 217 F. Supp. 481, 491 (D. Or. 1963) (“The Superior Court of the State of
Washington is a Court of general jurisdiction.”). A plaintiff who asserts claims that do not form
the basis for subject matter jurisdiction in federal court should ordinarily file his or her complaint
in a state court.

ORDER - 4

1

The amended complaint must be filed under the same case number as this one, and

2

will operate as a complete substitute for, rather than a mere supplement to, the existing

3

complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). The court

4

DIRECTS Plaintiff to file his amended complaint no later than 21 days following the

5

entry date of this order. The court WARNS Plaintiff that if he fails to timely comply with

6

this order to file an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies identified above, the

7

court will enter a dismissal of his complaint without prejudice and without further notice

8

to him.

9

Dated this 6th day of March, 2017.

10
11

A

12

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 5