Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00369/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00369-0/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

Elijah Muhammad, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jessie Jackson, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-369-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Elijah Muhammad commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint on

February 26, 2008. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and

a motion for injunctive relief. Dkt. ##3-4. The Court will dismiss the complaint without

prejudice and deny the motions 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) (citing Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Mich. R.y. Co. v. Swan,

111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884)); 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

Case 2:08-cv-00369-DGC Document 5 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 -

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

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).

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[.]”). Plaintiff’s onepage complaint contains no factual allegations, no explanation of his claim, and no statement

of the basis for jurisdiction. Dkt. #1. The complaint asserts that Defendants have violated

the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, Dkt. #1 at 1, but this bare statement is not

sufficient to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff “has no cause of action directly under

the United States Constitution.” Azul-Pacifico Inc. v. City of L.A., 973 F.2d 704, 705 (9th

Cir. 1992). “[A] litigant complaining of a violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42

U.S.C. § 1983.” Id.; see Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th

Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s claims are not brought under § 1983 or any other federal 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).

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is also insufficient to invoke this Court’s

jurisdiction. The motion consists of a California state court form used to obtain restraining

orders against domestic violence. The motion cites no federal law or claim.

Case 2:08-cv-00369-DGC Document 5 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 -

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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.

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 violations of his constitutional rights 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.

Case 2:08-cv-00369-DGC Document 5 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 -

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

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.

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) and motion for

injunctive relief (Dkt. #4) are denied as moot.

DATED this 25th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00369-DGC Document 5 Filed 03/25/08 Page 4 of 4