Opinion
C24-0486-JCC
04-30-2024
BRADLEY RAY CAIRNES, Plaintiff, v. PAMELA HEMMINGER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed in forma pauperis is subject to sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court “at any time” to the extent it is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek[s] monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001). And while the Court holds pro se plaintiffs to less stringent pleading standards and liberally construes a pro se complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), they remain bound by the rules of procedure. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).
According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must include a short plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, along with a description of the claim establishing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief and a description of the relief sought. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. And because subject matter jurisdiction is a foundational issue, the Court must dismiss a complaint any time it appears that it has no jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); see Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (allegations must support the court's subject matter jurisdiction). Federal question jurisdiction exists where a plaintiff's claim arises “under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction exists where the amount at issue in the lawsuit is more than $75,000 and no plaintiffs or defendants are citizens of the same state. See id. § 1332.
Based on the Court's review of the instant complaint, it finds that Plaintiff's allegations fail to establish this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1), (2). According to Plaintiff's complaint, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction because “U.S. Code Title 38 . . . governs the rights of veterans and their property.” (Dkt. No. 5 at 1.) But the citation is inapt. Plaintiff's case is a quiet title action. (See generally id.) While Title 38 does address veterans' affairs, it only governs the disposition of certain unclaimed deceased veterans' personal property. See, e.g., 38 U.S.C. § 8502. And it does not provide a cause of action in a civil case. See 38 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Moreover, a quiet title action against private parties (as opposed to the federal government) is, by its very nature, a matter of state law. See Liddell v. All Persons Unknown, 2022 WL 2159261, slip op. at 2 (C.D. Cal. 2022) (collecting cases). It does not present a federal question and, accordingly, does not confer subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Nor would diversity jurisdiction apply here, as all parties are Washington citizens. (See Dkt. No. 5 at 6.)
While the Court gives pro se plaintiffs leave to amend, it need not do so if “it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). And here, it is not conceivable that Plaintiff could adequately plead violations of federal law and/or diversity jurisdiction. For this reason, Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 5) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.