Opinion
C23-1902-JCC
12-19-2023
IDRIS TURNER ALI-EL, Plaintiff, v. CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, et al., Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge:
On December 18, 2023, the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan, United States Magistrate Judge, granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Dkt. No. 5.) Summons has not yet issued. A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 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.” Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001). In addition, the Court must dismiss a complaint any time it finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case or controversy. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
According to Rule 8,a complaint must include the following: (1) a short plain statement of the grounds for this Court's jurisdiction; (2) a description of the claim establishing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief sought; and (3) a description of the relief sought. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Here, the Court finds Plaintiff's complaint fails to establish this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1).
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).
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 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Whereas federal question jurisdiction exists when a plaintiff's claim arises “under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States.” See id. § 1331. This complaint establishes neither. It alleges that Plaintiff and Defendants are Washington citizens. (See Dkt. No. 6 at 1-2.) As such, it fails to plead diversity jurisdiction. And the conduct it alleges does not arise under federal law. (See id. at 10-15.) Rather, it implicates Washington law. (Id.)
The complaint refers to the “Equality Act of 2021.” (Dkt. No. 6 at 15.) The Court assumes this to be in reference to the Khalid Jabara and Heather Heyer National Opposition to Hate, Assault, and Threats to Equality Act of 2021. See Pub. L. 117-13 § 5, 135 Stat. 265, 26672 (codified at 34 U.S.C. § 30507). If so, this is an amendment to the Shepard-Byrd Act. It was enacted in May 2021 and provides additional federal resources for the local investigation and reporting of hate crimes. It does not provide a federal cause of action in a civil suit.
To be clear, lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a foundational issue, providing a basis for immediate dismissal. See Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). However, when dismissing a complaint under § 1915(e), the Court gives pro se plaintiffs leave to amend unless “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). Here, it is perhaps conceivable that Plaintiff could adequately plead violations of federal law, based on the events described. For this reason, the Court finds that leave to amend is warranted.
Based on the foregoing, the Court DECLINES to serve Plaintiff's complaint and GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint curing the above-noted deficiencies within 30 days after the date this order is signed.If no amended complaint is filed within this time period or if Plaintiff files an amended complaint that fails to correct the deficiencies identified above, the Court may dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) and/or 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).
Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint operates as a complete substitute for an original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, any amended complaint must clearly identify the defendant(s), the legally cognizable claims asserted, the specific facts which Plaintiff believes support each claim, and the specific relief requested.