Opinion
Case No. 3:19-cv-00292-AC
03-06-2019
RYAN CHRISTOPHER JAMES, Plaintiff, v. OREGON STATE LEGISLATURE, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION :
Plaintiff Ryan Christopher James brings this pro se claim against Defendant, the Oregon State Legislature ("OSL"). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application with the court to proceed in forma pauperis, which this court granted. (ECF Nos. 2, 5.) For the reasons stated below, the court recommends that the Complaint be dismissed.
Standards
A complaint filed in forma pauperis may be dismissed at any time, including before service of process, if the Court determines that:
(B) the action or appeal-
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (sua sponte dismissals under § 1915 "spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering" complaints which are "frivolous, malicious, or repetitive"); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by inmates); Preciado v. Salas, No. 1:13-cv-00390, 2014 WL 127710, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014) ("The Court is required to screen complaints brought by plaintiffs proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis.")(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.
As the Ninth Circuit has instructed however, courts must "continue to construe pro se filings liberally." Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A pro se complaint filed " 'must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). A pro se litigant 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, 203 F.3d at 1130-31.
Discussion
I. Plaintiff's Allegations
In the Complaint, Plaintiff's statement of claim is as follows:
I've had the IID for over 3 years now. I've completed all treatment and have stayed clean for over 3 years. I would like to know [i]f this device can be taken out of my car early for good behavior?(Compl. at 4.) Plaintiff alleges the basis for jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff identifies the basis for this court's jurisdiction is the State of Oregon's Ignition Interlock Law, which is found at Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 813.602 and 813.606. (Id. at 3.)
II. Jurisdiction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). Federal jurisdiction may be based on the presence of a federal question or on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Federal question jurisdiction may exist where a claim involves the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For jurisdiction to exist by reason of diversity, the matter in controversy must exceed the sum or value of $75,000, and the action must be between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The court must dismiss an action where it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff indicates that the basis for jurisdiction is a "federal question," but he cites no federal constitutional, statutory, or treaty right at issue in this case. Nor does he provide facts from which the court could identify or infer a federal question. Instead, Plaintiff identifies only state statutes and his inquiry of the device's early removal appears to be a state law claim.
Plaintiff does not allege diversity jurisdiction, and diversity jurisdiction is not apparent on the face of his Complaint. Plaintiff indicates that he lives in Beaverton, Oregon and that OSL is in Salem, Oregon. (Compl. at 1-2.) And, Plaintiff does not allege an amount in controversy, let alone allege an amount exceeding $75,000. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff asserts damages for a state law claim, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear those claims because diversity jurisdiction is not present.
Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Complaint 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); Moye v. Creighton, Case No. 3:17-cv- 01984-HZ, 2018 WL 523205, at *2 (D. Or. Jan. 19, 2018) (dismissing complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) should be DISMISSED. The court recommends that the district judge dismiss Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend within 30 days of the district judge's order of dismissal to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted above. The court further recommends that the district judge advise Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint which cures the deficiencies noted shall result in the dismissal of this proceeding, with prejudice.
Scheduling Order
The Court will refer its Findings and Recommendation to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due fourteen (14) days from service of the Findings and Recommendation. If no objections are filed, the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. If objections are filed, a response is due fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement.
DATED this 6th day of March, 2019.
/s/_________
JOHN V. ACOSTA
United States Magistrate Judge