Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00486/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00486-0/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

Travis Dwayne Conish, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Curtis Jackson (50 Cent); Coca-Cola;

and Glaceau,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-486-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Travis Conish commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint against

Defendants on March 11, 2008. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. Dkt. #3. The Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice and deny the

motion as moot.

I. Dismissal of the Complaint.

“[A] federal court may dismiss sua sponte if jurisdiction is lacking.” Fiedler v. Clark,

714 F.2d 77, 78 (9th Cir. 1983); see Franklin v. Or. State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342

(9th Cir. 1981) (same). “While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond

when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal

is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Group, Inc.,

336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)

(“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks

jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”).

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

Case 2:08-cv-00486-DGC Document 4 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

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 alleges a federal cause of action or the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331, 1332(a).

Plaintiff’s one-page complaint contains no factual allegations and no explanation of

his claim. Dkt. #1. The caption does state that Plaintiff is suing for “copyright, patent

infringement and theft,” Dkt. #1 at 1, but this bare statement is not sufficient to invoke the

Court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiffs must provide a statement of the grounds for the Court’s

subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (“A pleading . . . shall contain (1) a short

and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends[.]”). Federal

district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising under an act of Congress

relating to copyrights and patents, see 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), but Plaintiff’s complaint provides

no explanation as to why his claim arises under any such statute. Nor does the complaint

assert that the parties are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The Court

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

Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Franklin, 662 F.2d at 1343 (affirming sua sponte dismissal of claims that

did not state a federal cause of action); Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 (courts must presume lack

of jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise).

II. Leave to Amend the Complaint.

“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.”

Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). In this case, Plaintiff

could cure the jurisdictional defect by asserting claims under federal copyright and patent

laws. See generally 17 U.S.C. §§ 501 and 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 et seq. The Court will dismiss

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

properly invokes this Court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall have until Friday, April 25, 2008

to file an amended complaint.

Case 2:08-cv-00486-DGC Document 4 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

III. Plaintiff’s Obligations.

Plaintiff 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. 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 “shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon

which the court’s jurisdiction depends, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the

pleader seeks.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). These pleading requirements shall be set forth in

separate and discrete paragraphs. Rule 8(e) provides that each such paragraph “shall be

simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(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 causes of action – “are sufficient under the

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

contemplate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 84.

Plaintiff is advised that vague references to copyright and patent infringement are

insufficient to satisfy even the liberal notice pleading requirements of Rule 8. The amended

complaint must give Defendants fair notice of what Plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds

upon which they are based. See Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005). This

includes some factual basis for the claims and the specific legal theory supporting each claim.

See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The amended complaint must also provide a clear statement

of this Court’s jurisdiction and the relief Plaintiff seeks. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (3).

Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to prosecute this action or comply with the

rules or any Court order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to

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

IV. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

Because the complaint will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the Court will deny

as moot Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff may file another motion

Case 2:08-cv-00486-DGC Document 4 Filed 03/25/08 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

to proceed in forma pauperis if he decides to file an amended complaint as permitted by this

order. Plaintiff is advised that his supporting financial affidavit must be complete. The

instant affidavit does not provide the name of Plaintiff’s employer or the amount of his

earnings, does not indicate whether Plaintiff has a spouse who is employed, and does not

describe the nature of other monies Plaintiff received within the past twelve months. See

Dkt. #3 ¶¶ 1-3.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. #1) is dismissed without prejudice for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

2. Plaintiff has until April 25, 2008 to file an amended complaint. The Clerk

shall terminate this action without further notice if Plaintiff fails to comply

with this deadline

4. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. #3) is denied as moot.

DATED this 25th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00486-DGC Document 4 Filed 03/25/08 Page 4 of 4