Martin v. Miller

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-02136

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 08/03/2015. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/3/2015: # {{1}} Certificate/Proof of Service)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 YOHONIA MARTIN, 7 Case No. 15-cv-02136-DMR Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 9 ROBERT MILLER, 10 Defendant. 11 12 Plaintiff Yohonia Martin filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis Northern District of California United States District Court 13 ("IFP"). On July 2, 2015, the court granted the IFP application and dismissed Plaintiff's 14 complaint with leave to amend. [Docket No. 5.] The court's order noted that Plaintiff's complaint 15 did not clearly plead a basis for federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction, and that 16 Plaintiff's allegations failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court ordered 17 Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that addressed these deficiencies by July 23, 2015. 18 On July 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document titled "Opening Brief" in which Plaintiff 19 provides additional details about the allegations in the complaint. [Docket No. 6.] Plaintiff 20 subsequently filed a document titled "Motion to Amend," along with five proposed subpoenas, 21 and "Fact To Be Considered By The Court," along with three proposed subpoenas. [Docket Nos. 22 7, 8.] The court construes the July 9, 2015 "Opening Brief" to be Plaintiff's amended complaint. 23 This document, which is largely incomprehensible, fails to cure the defects noted by the court in 24 its order dismissing the complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to plead facts to support 25 federal-question jurisdiction. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) ("federal 26 jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly 27 pleaded complaint."). Plaintiff also does not plead any facts to support diversity jurisdiction, since 28 Plaintiff and Defendant Robert Miller appear to be citizens of California and Plaintiff does not 1 allege the value of any damages suffered as a result of Defendant's alleged actions. See 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1332(a) (providing that district courts shall have original jurisdiction of civil actions between 3 citizens of different states where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000). 4 The court has also reviewed Plaintiff's "Motion to Amend" and "Fact To Be Considered 5 By The Court." These documents, which are also difficult to understand, contain some facts 6 related to the allegations in the complaint against Defendant Miller. However, they do not contain 7 any facts to support this court's subject matter jurisdiction over this action. In the Motion to 8 Amend, Plaintiff briefly mentions the Fourteenth Amendment, stating "Plaintiff is in addition 9 attempting to bring to Judicial point for review the possible conversion of defendant and The 10 Camonar Group of San Mateo (where the opposite party of the plaintiff has the name Ruby Khan 11 bringing plaintiff to the thought of institutional sabotage) to which and whom are again 12 responsible and also for placing plaintiff in the suspect classification of the Fourteenth Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Amendment of the Civil Rights Act." (Mot. to Amend 3.) It is unclear who the "Camonar Group" 14 or "Ruby Khan" are, and Plaintiff has not alleged any other facts about them or named them as 15 defendants in this action. Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall 16 "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," and "can be violated 17 only by conduct that may be fairly characterized as 'state action.'" Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 18 Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 924 (1982). Here, the sole defendant named in Plaintiff's complaint is Robert 19 Miller, and Plaintiff makes no allegations that his actions may be characterized as "state action." 20 Plaintiff has already been given one opportunity to amend the complaint to allege facts 21 supporting this court's jurisdiction. Having failed to do so, the court dismisses this action and 22 directs the Clerk of the Court to close the case. Plaintiff's requests for the court to issue ISTRIC 23 subpoenas are denied as moot. TES D TC TA 24 O S U ED RT DERED 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. UNIT O OR 26 Dated: August 3, 2015 IT IS S R NIA ______________________________________ 27 Donna M. Ryu. Ryu na M Judge NO e DonMagistrate UnitedgStates FO 28 Jud RT LI 2 ER H A N C F DI TO