Opinion
CV-21-00476-TUC-JAS (MSA)
07-14-2022
Francisco J Valenzuela, Plaintiff, v. Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Honorable Maria S. Aguilera, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Francisco Valenzuela, a pro se litigant, is proceeding in forma pauperis. (Doc. 10.) As such, the Court must screen his complaint to determine whether it “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). In addition, the Court is “bound to consider jurisdictional defects sua sponte.” Eminence Invs., L.L.L.P. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 782 F.3d 504, 506 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 543 F.2d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 1976)). For the following reasons, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I. Background
The sole defendant in this action is the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona. In support of his claim against Defendant, Plaintiff alleges the following: In August 2021, Plaintiff and his employer, Erik Salazar, submitted a bid for a contract to install solar paneling on the homes of Defendant's tribal members. (Doc. 1 at 6.) Plaintiff and Salazar were informed that they would receive a response to their bid within one week, but they did not receive a timely response. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff followed up with various individuals who work for Defendant and was informed that the bidding process had been put on hold. (Id.) Plaintiff received only vague responses as to why this occurred. (Id.)
At some point thereafter, Salazar told Plaintiff that Defendant would be accepting bids for a separate project. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff later discovered that Salazar had already submitted a bid for the second project, and that Salazar had done so using documents from the first bid, including documents bearing Plaintiff's signature. (Id. at 8-9.) Plaintiff inquired why Salazar had submitted the bid without consulting Plaintiff, but Salazar refused to answer. (Id. at 9.)
Plaintiff believes that his parents' home is being used for criminal activity without their permission. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff believes that he and his family have been the victims of identity fraud. (Id.)
II. Discussion
A district court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action if it “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or if it involves citizens of different states and an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000, id. § 1332. Here, federal-question jurisdiction is lacking because the contract and fraud issues mentioned in the complaint do not implicate federal law. See Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Rsrv., 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[F]ederal question jurisdiction does not exist merely because an Indian tribe is a party or the case involves a contract with an Indian tribe.”). Diversity jurisdiction is also lacking because Plaintiff is an Arizona citizen, and Defendant is a federally recognized Native American tribe in southern Arizona. See id. at 1226 (“[F]or purposes of diversity jurisdiction, an Indian [tribe] is a citizen of the state in whose borders the reservation is located.” (citations omitted)).
Plaintiff also fails to state a claim against Defendant. According to the complaint, Defendant solicited bids for a contract, failed to award the contract, and failed to respond adequately to Plaintiff's inquiries about the bidding process. There are no facts indicating that the bid should have been awarded to Plaintiff, or that Defendant had a legal duty to communicate to Plaintiff its reasons for postponing the award. Furthermore, all the allegations of fraud pertain to parties other than Defendant. Therefore, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the complaint (Doc. 1) and this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
This recommendation is not immediately appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of this recommendation to file specific written objections with the district court. The parties shall have fourteen days to file responses to any objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). No replies may be filed absent prior authorization by the district court. Failure to file timely objections may result in the acceptance of this recommendation by the district court without de novo review. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).