Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00613/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00613-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights

---

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

Imran Ahmad Jamali, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Maricopa County, a private municipal 

corporation, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV13-613 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Before the Court are the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Maricopa County 

(“the County”)1

 (Doc. 8), the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants James Richmond 

and Richmond Consulting Group, LLC (Doc. 10), the motion to dismiss filed by 

Defendant Kyle Ritter (Doc. 14), the motion for alternative service of process filed by 

Plaintiff (Doc. 15), the motion to schedule a default hearing filed by Plaintiff 

(Doc. 28), the motion for extension of time for service filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 43), and 

the motion to compel answer filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 44). No party has requested oral 

argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss the complaint for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

I. Background.

 Chandler police agents arrested Plaintiff on October 4, 2010. Doc. 1, ¶ 31. The 

following day, the County took Plaintiff’s name, image, and other private information. 

 1

 The Court will refer to the other Defendants collectively as “the Website Defendants.” 

Case 2:13-cv-00613-DGC Document 47 Filed 05/29/13 Page 1 of 6
- 2 - 

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 

Id., ¶ 32. The County distributed this information to the Website Defendants. Id., 

¶ 33. The Website Defendants posted the information to their webpages (id., ¶ 33), 

and required payment to have the information removed (id., ¶ 35). The information 

remains on the Internet even after an individual website removes the information from 

its webpage. Id., ¶ 36. 

 The complaint asserts the following twelve causes of action: (1) invasion of 

privacy by means of unauthorized appropriation of name or likeness; (2) invasion of 

privacy by means of public disclosure of private facts; (3) invasion of privacy by false 

light; (4) invasion of privacy by intrusion; (5) intentional infliction of emotional 

distress; (6) gross negligence; (7) blackmail; (8) extortion; (9) civil conspiracy; 

(10) defamation by slander; (11) conversion; and (12) unjust enrichment. Doc 1.2

II. Dismissal of Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

 The County moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Doc. 8 at 4-6. The County argues that the complaint asserts only state law claims and 

that there is no other basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Id. 

 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power 

authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Pursuant to federal statutes, this Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction over a case only if the complaint raises a federal question or the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). “The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving 

all jurisdictional facts.” Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th 

Cir. 1990) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)); 

see Fenton v. Freedman, 748 F.2d 1358, 1359, n.1 (9th Cir. 1984). Courts must presume 

a lack of jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. To 

 2

 The blackmail claim is asserted against the Website Defendants (Doc. 1, ¶ 72), and the defamation by slander claim against Defendant “Doe 8” (id., ¶¶ 82-89). The complaint asserts the other claims against all Defendants. 

Case 2:13-cv-00613-DGC Document 47 Filed 05/29/13 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

overcome that presumption, the plaintiff must provide a statement of the grounds for the 

court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

 Pro se Plaintiff asserts that the Court has federal question jurisdiction. Doc. 1, ¶ 

20 (“The complaint arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and 

therefore this court has jurisdiction pursuant Tile 18 U.S.C. § 241, Title 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331 and Article II, sections 3, 8 and 33 of the constitution of the State of 

Arizona.”). Federal question jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which 

provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Section 1331 does not 

itself create federal jurisdiction; it “confers jurisdiction only where a federal question 

is otherwise at issue[.]” Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227, 229 (9th Cir. 1980). In 

general, a federal question invokes a “right or immunity created by the Constitution or 

laws of the United States[.]” Gully v. First Nat'l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112 (1936). 

That federal right or immunity “must be an element, and an essential one, of the 

plaintiff’s cause of action.” Id. While it is not an infallible rule, if federal law creates 

the cause of action, federal question jurisdiction will generally lie. Murphey v. Lanier,

204 F.3d 911, 912 (9th Cir. 2000); see Am. Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.,

241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916) (“A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of 

action.”). 

 The complaint’s jurisdictional statement and the extortion claim refer to 18 

U.S.C. § 241. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 20, 75. But because § 241 is a criminal statute that does not 

give rise to civil liability, see Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 

(9th Cir. 2006), the complaint does not state a claim arising under § 241 and therefore 

the Court’s federal question jurisdiction cannot be premised on this statute. The 

complaint does not identify any other federal statute or any right created by the United 

States Constitution.3

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor does the complaint assert that the 

 3

 Plaintiff’s response indicates that he is asserting a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim 

Case 2:13-cv-00613-DGC Document 47 Filed 05/29/13 Page 3 of 6
- 4 - 

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 

parties are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Because Plaintiff has 

not shown that his complaint is subject to federal question or diversity jurisdiction, the 

Court will dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

III. Leave to Amend.

 “The court should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so 

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see 28 U.S.C. § 1653 (authorizing amendment of 

pleadings to cure defective jurisdictional statement). In the Ninth Circuit, “[a] pro se 

litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is ‘absolutely clear 

that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.’” KarimPanahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Noll v. 

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also Waters v. Young, 100 F.3d 

1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1996) (“As a general matter, this court has long sought to ensure 

that pro se litigants do not unwittingly fall victim to procedural requirements that they 

may, with some assistance from the court, be able to satisfy.”). The Court will dismiss 

the complaint without prejudice and allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, 

consistent with this order, that properly invokes the Court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall 

have until Friday, June 28, 2013, to file an amended complaint. 

 The Court is required to give some guidance to a pro se plaintiff regarding the 

deficiencies of a dismissed complaint. Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 625. Plaintiff’s 

complaint has failed adequately to state the basis on which this Court may exercise 

jurisdiction over his claims against any of the Defendants. Plaintiff is advised that his 

amended complaint must include a “short and plain statement of the grounds” for this 

Court’s jurisdiction over each claim against each Defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

 (Doc. 32 at 7), and claims under the Fifth and Seventh Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution (id. at 12). The Court has construed the complaint liberally, see Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987), and finds that the complaint does not assert these claims. 

Case 2:13-cv-00613-DGC Document 47 Filed 05/29/13 Page 4 of 6
- 5 - 

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 

Pursuant to federal statutes, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim only 

if (a) the complaint alleges a federal claim (“federal question jurisdiction”), (b) the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states 

(“diversity jurisdiction”), or (c) federal question or diversity jurisdiction exists over 

some of the claims and supplemental jurisdiction is established over the remaining 

claims. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a), 1367. 

IV. Plaintiff's Obligations. 

 Defendants’ motions raise issues concerning (1) the filing of a notice of claim, 

A.R.S. § 12-821.01; (2) failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); (3) service of 

process, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j), (m); and (4) statutes of limitations, A.R.S. §§ 12-821, 12-

542. Docs. 8, 10, 14. If Plaintiff is able to cure the jurisdictional defect of his 

complaint, the amended complaint will have to address these issues as well. 

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”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are 

available at the following Internet website: www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A copy 

of the Court’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure may be obtained in the Clerk’s Office 

and are available online at the Court’s Internet website: www.azd.uscourts.gov 

(follow hyperlink titled “Rules/General Orders”). 

 For purposes of the amended complaint, Plaintiff is directed to Rule 8 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint “must contain 

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, . . . (2) a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and 

(3) a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). These pleading requirements 

shall be set forth in separate and discrete paragraphs. Rule 8(d) provides that each 

such paragraph “must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). The 

forms contained in the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – which 

include forms regarding jurisdictional statements and sample complaints on various 

Case 2:13-cv-00613-DGC Document 47 Filed 05/29/13 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

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 

causes of action – “suffice under the[ ] rules and illustrate the simplicity and brevity 

that the[ ] rules contemplate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 84. 

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

order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (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. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice for lack of 

 subject matter jurisdiction. 

2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before June 28, 2013, 

consistent with this order. 

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action without further order of 

the Court if Plaintiff fails to comply with this deadline. 

4. All pending motions (Docs. 8, 10, 14, 15, 28, 43, 44, 46) are denied as 

moot. 

 Dated this 29th day of May, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-00613-DGC Document 47 Filed 05/29/13 Page 6 of 6