Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00598/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00598-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Hosac

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Mesa, body politic; Assistant Chief

of Police, John Meza, Former Director of

Media Relations, Holly (Hosac) Walter, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV09-0598-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. #6.

Defendants claim that even though the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, the

Plaintiff and Defendants all reside in Arizona and this Court therefore does not have diversity

jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not dispute the lack of diversity jurisdiction, but instead asserts

federal question jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Dkt. #7.

In reply, Defendants argue that the complaint fails to assert a specific violation of the

Constitution or federal law. Dkt # 10. Even in light of the liberal reading that must be

accorded this pro se Plaintiff, the Court agrees that the complaint does not contain sufficient

allegations of the Court’s jurisdiction or Plaintiff’s claim for relief. Plaintiff’s jurisdiction

statement includes only factors related to diversity jurisdiction and does not assert federal

question jurisdiction. The body of the complaint invokes Arizona law, not federal or

Constitutional law. 

Case 2:09-cv-00598-ECV Document 11 Filed 09/03/09 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Plaintiff is advised that “to state a claim for relief in an action brought under § 1983,

[plaintiffs] must [allege] that they were deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or

laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state

law.” Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999). “Section 1983 ‘is not

itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a method for vindicating federal

rights elsewhere conferred.’” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (quoting Baker

v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144, n. 3 (1979)). “It is well settled that section 1983 ‘imposes

liability for violations of rights protected by the Constitution, not for violations of duties of

care arising out of tort law.’” Johnson v. Barker, 799 F.2d 1396, 1399 (9th Cir. 1986)

(quoting Baker, 443 U.S. at 146).

Plaintiff may have attempted to assert a §1983 claim, alleging that Defendants acted

“under the color of law”(par. 5) and to “frustrate the plaintiff due process” (par. 7), but the

complaint fails to link the alleged facts to any specified Constitutional or federal rights

claims. For the purpose of stating a claim, legal conclusions couched as factual allegations

are not given a presumption of truthfulness and “conclusory allegations of law and

unwarranted inferences are not sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.” Pareto v. F.D.I.C.,

139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice

and allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. 

Plaintiff is advised that he must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of

Arizona (“Local Rules”), which may be obtained in the Clerk of Court’s office. In preparing

an amended complaint, Plaintiff should consult Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 84 and the

“Appendix of Forms” referenced therein because such forms “are sufficient under the rules

and are intended to indicate the simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules

contemplate.”

If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action or comply with the rules or any Court order,

the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

Case 2:09-cv-00598-ECV Document 11 Filed 09/03/09 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to

comply with a court order).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction (Dkt. #6) is granted.

2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by September 25, 2009. If Plaintiff

does not file an amended complaint by this date, the clerk is directed to

terminate this action. 

DATED this 3rd day of September, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00598-ECV Document 11 Filed 09/03/09 Page 3 of 3