Opinion
2:23-cv-00343-YY
05-01-2023
THOMAS EUGENE STEFANI, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL ALLEN LONGHORN and EDWARD ALFRED LONGHORN, SR., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
YOULEE YIM YOU, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
FINDINGS
On March 22, 2023, the court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his original complaint. Order, ECF 6. Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF 8), but it still fails to provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, this case should be dismissed without prejudice.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside [the federal court's] limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377).
Plaintiff asserts this court has federal question jurisdiction. Am. Compl. 3, ECF 8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” It appears that defendants are represented by counsel who intend to file a notice of appearance and respond to the amended complaint. See ECF 23. Regardless, this court is “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [it has] subject matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff's claims stem from a dispute that he has with his uncle, defendant Edward Longhorn, Sr. (“Longhorn Sr.”), over a deed signed by plaintiff's parents and which plaintiff believes his uncle forged or had forged. Am. Compl., Ex. 43, ECF 8 at 33. In August 2022, defendant Longhorn Sr. sought a restraining order against plaintiff in Umatilla County Circuit Court. See Am. Compl., Ex. 32, ECF 8 at 22; see also id., Ex. 26, ECF 8 at 19 (text messages from plaintiff to defendants). That matter was dismissed on January 17, 2023, by stipulation of the parties in lieu of a “Civil Agreement of No Contact” that the parties signed on January 10, 2023. id., Ex. 36, ECF 8 at 26. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed this federal court case against Longhorn Sr. and his son, Daniel Longhorn. As part of his prayer, plaintiff asks the court to freeze and seize defendants' assets and impose “a sentence of fine.” Id. at 13.
In his claims, plaintiff cites to numerous criminal statutes under Title 18 of the United States Code, including 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law), 18 U.S.C. § 2340A (torture), 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. § 1031 (major fraud against the United State), 18 U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of felony), and 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (perjury). There is no civil cause of action under these statutes. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding that 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 “provide no basis for civil liability”) (citations omitted); Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164, 190 (1994) (“[W]e refuse[ ] to infer a private right of action from ‘a bare criminal statute' . . . [a]nd we have not suggested that a private right of action exists for all injuries caused by violations of criminal prohibitions.”); Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 316 (1979) (recognizing that “this Court has rarely implied a private right of action under a criminal statute, and where it has done so ‘there was at least a statutory basis for inferring that a civil cause of action of some sort lay in favor of someone.'”) (citation omitted).
Similarly, plaintiff has no cause of action under the other federal statutes he cites, including 42 U.S.C. § 14505, which pertains to volunteers working at nonprofit organizations and governmental entities, 34 U.S.C. § 21711, which pertains to designating assistant United States attorneys to serve as the Elder Justice Coordinator in each district, and 42 U.S.C. § 1760, which pertains to school lunch programs.
Because plaintiff does not allege a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” he has failed to establish that this court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although plaintiff is a pro se litigant, he was previously advised of the deficiencies in his complaint, and has not cured them. The court ordered plaintiff to describe “what specific federal cause of action he has that can support this Court's federal question jurisdiction.” Order to Amend, 3, ECF 6. Plaintiff has failed to do so, and it does not appear that he can allege a federal claim arising out of this property dispute he has with other family members. Therefore, the case should be dismissed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Because plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction, this case should be dismissed without prejudice. All other pending motions should be denied as moot.
SCHEDULING ORDER
These Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due Monday, May 15, 2023. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement on that date.
If objections are filed, then a response is due within 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 Recommendations will go under advisement.
NOTICE
These Findings and Recommendations are not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of a judgment.