Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01299/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01299-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES L. DAVIS.

Plaintiff,

v.

JERRY DOE, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:19-cv-01299-DAD-EPG

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE 

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT 

MATTER JURISDICTION 

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

TWENTY-ONE DAYS

(ECF No. 6 )

Plaintiff, Charles Davis (“Plaintiff”), is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

action filed September 16, 2019. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). Plaintiff’s complaint asserts constitutional 

claims against the Kings Gospel Mission and a lead staff member there. Because those appeared 

to be private entities, not subject to the Constitution or section 1983, the Court ordered Plaintiff 

on April 16, 2020 to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction within 30 days. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order. 

Accordingly, the Court recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s case for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks 

subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 

822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[A] court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua 

sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action, even on appeal.”); 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 

Case 1:19-cv-01299-DAD-EPG Document 7 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 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

2

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal 

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”).

I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

A. Legal Standards for Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction

This court is a federal court, which is a court of limited jurisdiction. Gunn v. Minton, 568

U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (“Federal courts are courts 

of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.”).

There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: federal question and diversity. 

Under federal question jurisdiction, federal district courts “have original jurisdiction over all civil 

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Under diversity jurisdiction, federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions 

where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between . . . 

citizens of different states. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff, as the party invoking federal 

jurisdiction, “has the burden of proving the actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction.” 

Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996).

Plaintiff appears to be asserting causes of action under the U.S. Constitution. Individuals 

and private entities are not normally liable for violations of most rights secured by the United 

States Constitution. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936 (1982). In order to maintain

a cause of action based on an allegation of constitutional violations, a plaintiff must show that the 

actions complained of are “fairly attributable” to the government. Rendell–Baker v. Kohn, 457

U.S. 830, 838 (1982); see also Vincent v. Trend Western Technical Corp., 828 F.2d 563, 567 (9th

Cir.1987).

This state action requirement is also statutory under the statute that provides a private 

right of action to enforce constitutional violations against state actors. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 states that “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or 

usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, 

any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation 

of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable . . . .” 

Case 1:19-cv-01299-DAD-EPG Document 7 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 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

3

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thus, for actions arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “a plaintiff must show that 

the conduct allegedly causing the deprivation of a federal right be fairly attributable to the 

State.” Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(quoting Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982)). Therefore, “merely private 

conduct” is not actionable under § 1983, “no matter how discriminatory or wrongful.” Id.

(quoting Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999)). A state action is a 

jurisdictional requirement. Peng v. Mei Chin Penghu, 335 F.3d 970, 980-81 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(affirming dismissal against defendants in § 1983 action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

because defendants were not state actors). 

The exception is when “there is such a close nexus between the State and the challenged 

action that seemingly private behavior may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.” Caviness, 

590 F.3d at 812. In Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, the

Supreme Court listed seven instances where a private actor’s conduct may properly be considered 

a state action:

We have, for example, held that a challenged activity may be state action when it 

results from the States exercise of coercive power, when the State provides 

significant encouragement, either overt or covert, or when a private actor operates 

as a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents. We have 

treated a nominally private entity as a state actor when it is controlled by an 

agency of the State, when it has been delegated a public function by the State, 

when it is entwined with governmental policies, or when government is entwined 

in its management or control.

531 U.S. 288, 296 (2001) (internal quotation marks, citations and brackets omitted).

B. Application to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) alleges two claims under the U.S. Constitution against 

Kings Gospel Mission (“the Mission”) and Jerry Doe, a lead staff member at the Mission. 

These appear to be private, not government, actors. Thus, they are not subject to the U.S. 

Constitution, and cannot be sued under Section 1983. Without any such federal claim, the Court 

lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint against them.

In Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff states that the Kings Gospel Mission is a “Public Entity, 

non-profit faith based organization.” (ECF No. 1, at 4.) However, Plaintiff does not assert any 

Case 1:19-cv-01299-DAD-EPG Document 7 Filed 05/28/20 Page 3 of 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

4

facts that establish that it is a public entity. The Court takes judicial notice,1that the Kings 

Gospel Mission’s webpage states that “Kings Gospel Mission & Cornerstone Industries does not 

accept or solicit government grants.” https://kingsgospelmission.org/. This appears to confirm 

that it is a private entity, and not a government actor. 

Additionally, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his case should not be 

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Plaintiff failed to respond. (ECF No. 6).

The Complaint also does not include factual allegations that support a finding of diversity 

jurisdiction. To the contrary, the Complaint lists Plaintiff’s mailing address as being in Hanford, 

CA, and that the Mission is at 805 W. 7th St., Hanford, CA.

Therefore, the allegations in the Complaint do not allege federal subject matter 

jurisdiction.

II. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

1. This action be dismissed based on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one

(21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 Federal Rule of Evidence 201.

Case 1:19-cv-01299-DAD-EPG Document 7 Filed 05/28/20 Page 4 of 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

5

Case 1:19-cv-01299-DAD-EPG Document 7 Filed 05/28/20 Page 5 of 5