Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02070/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02070-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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 J. Behrens, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Janice Lynn Behrens, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2070-PHX-EHC

ORDER

Plaintiff proceeding pro se commenced this action by filing a Complaint on August

28, 2006 (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 2) which

the Court denied in an Order filed on October 27, 2006 (Dkt. 7). It appears that Plaintiff has

paid the filing fee.

The Court has entered four Orders in this case denying Motions filed by Plaintiff,

including motions seeking entry of default or default judgment against the Defendant (See

Orders at Dkt. 14, 18, 34, 39). Some form of pleading, however, has been served on

Defendant. Defendant, represented by counsel, has filed an Answer (Dkt. 64) and a Motion

to Dismiss this case for failure to state a claim for relief based on Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt.

65). 

Case 2:06-cv-02070-EHC Document 76 Filed 12/14/07 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 -

In her Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not only failed to state

a claim but has failed to file a Complaint with the Court. Defendant further argues that this

action has been maliciously filed stemming from a 1999 divorce proceeding that resulted in

a decree and that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (Dkt. 65).

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was filed on September 28, 2007 (Dkt. 65). Plaintiff

has not filed a Response to the Motion to Dismiss and the time for filing a Response has

passed. LRCiv. 12.1, 56.1.

Plaintiff has filed the following motions which are presently pending on the docket:

Motion which discusses contempt but does not appear to be addressed to a party (Dkt. 43);

Motion for Contempt (Dkt. 51); Motion for Order setting a Rule 16 [Fed.R.Civ.P.] Case

Management Conference (Dkt. 57); Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant (Dkt. 58);

Motion to Continue which seeks a continuance related to return of service (Dkt. 59); Motion

to Set Pretrial Conference (Dkt. 60); Motion to Amend/Correct which seeks a pretrial

conference setting (Dkt. 62); Motion for Enlargement of Time and for Warrant Apprehension

which seeks the setting of a deadline to respond to written interrogatories and the issuance

of a warrant of apprehension against the Defendant (Dkt. 66); an “Amendment Request”

which seeks the setting of a pretrial conference and trial date (Dkt. 67); and, a Motion which

does not seek any relief but which includes a page from a legal treatise (Dkt. 74). Plaintiff

also has moved to file information under seal. 

Defendant has filed a Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions against Plaintiff (Dkt. 69) and

a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlarged Time and Warrant Apprehension (Dkt.

70). Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Strike these Motions and Response filed by Defendant

(Dkt. 75). 

The allegations of a pro se plaintiff are liberally construed. Andrews v. Cervantes,

493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). A complaint must provide fair notice of a plaintiff’s

claims and the grounds on which they rest. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). There

must be factual allegations sufficient to raise at least an inference regarding the elements of

Case 2:06-cv-02070-EHC Document 76 Filed 12/14/07 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 -

a claim. Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 2005). A court must accept all

allegations of material fact as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff. Id. at 1040. A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless

it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that

would entitle him to relief. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002).

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

The Court has reviewed the allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff

appears to assert violations of several Arizona criminal statutes. Plaintiff alleges authority

under “the colors of his Military Uniform with the Military Police 860th Company” regarding

an investigation which commenced on or about August 22, 2004. Plaintiff appears to seek

“penalties and fines” but has not included a specific claim for money damages. Plaintiff

further alleges, “And the Supreme Court of California Where judgment was taken without

due process of the law or upon false proof of service of process of a defendant who was at

the time of the alleged service beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the courts, ... .” Attached

to the Complaint are various documents, including a police report, a deed of trust and court

papers that show the names of Plaintiff and Defendant, and copies of Arizona criminal

statutes (Dkt. 1).

To the extent that Plaintiff has attempted to assert a claim against Defendant for

violation of Arizona Criminal Statutes, “[n]o private citizen, however personally aggrieved,

may institute criminal proceedings independently. ...” State of Arizona v. Lamberton, 899

P.2d 939, 942 (Ariz. 1995)(citing Dix v. Superior Court, 807 P.2d 1063, 1066 (Cal.Sup.Court

1991)). 

Moreover, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff

and Defendant both appear to be citizens of Arizona. Plaintiff’s Complaint shows that he has

an Arizona address. An Affidavit regarding attempted Service shows Defendant as having

an Arizona address (Dkt. 6). (See also Dkt. 55 - Affidavit of Service showing Arizona

addresses for Plaintiff and Defendant). Title 28, United States Code, Section 1332 demands

Case 2:06-cv-02070-EHC Document 76 Filed 12/14/07 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 -

complete diversity, such that no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.

See Riley v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 292 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir.

2002). See also, Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001)(for

complete diversity to exist, a plaintiff “must be a citizen of a different state than each of the

defendants”). 

Plaintiff has not asserted any claim based on violation of a federal statute. Plaintiff

has not cited any basis for federal jurisdiction in the Complaint. A district court has an

obligation to inquire sua sponte into its subject matter jurisdiction, and the court may proceed

no further if such jurisdiction is wanting. County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc., 401 F.

Supp. 2d 1022, 1030 (N.D. Cal. 2005).

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be granted. All pending motions will be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 65) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s pending Motions, including, Motion

regarding Contempt (Dkt. 43); Motion for Contempt (Dkt. 51); Motion for Order Setting a

Rule 16 [Fed.R.Civ.P.] Case Management Conference (Dkt. 57); Motion for Default

Judgment as to Defendant (Dkt. 58); Motion to Continue (Dkt. 59); Motion to Set Pretrial

Conference (Dkt. 60); Motion to Amend/Correct (Dkt. 62); Motion for Enlargement of Time

and for Warrant Apprehension (Dkt. 66); Motion/ “Amendment Request” (Dkt. 67); Motion

(Dkt. 74); Motion to Strike (Dkt. 75), and any motion requesting to file information under

seal, are denied as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall return to Plaintiff any

information submitted for filing under seal

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (Dkt.

69) and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlarged Time and Warrant Apprehension

(Dkt. 70) are denied as moot. 

//

Case 2:06-cv-02070-EHC Document 76 Filed 12/14/07 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed.

 DATED this 12th day of December, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02070-EHC Document 76 Filed 12/14/07 Page 5 of 5