Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02648/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02648-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE SIMEON KING, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 13cv2648 JAH (WVG)

ORDER SUA SPONTE

DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR

WANT OF JURISDICTION AND

DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL AS MOOT

On November 1, 2013, Plaintiffs Maurice Simeon King and Hazel Marshall King

(“plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in this Court. Pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(h), “[w]henever it appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of the

subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.” FED.R.CIV.P. 12(h)(3). The Ninth

Circuit has interpreted this rule to permit district courts to raise the issue of subject matter

jurisdiction sua sponte at any point in the litigation, even on appeal. See Snell v. Cleveland,

Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002). “[A] suit may sometimes be dismissed for want

of jurisdiction where the alleged claim under the Constitution or federal statutes clearly

appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or

where such claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678,

682-83 (1946); see also Franklin v. Oregon State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th

Cir. 1981).

Here, plaintiffs assert this Court’s jurisdiction is based on a federal question. See

Doc. # 1. Plaintiffs’ sole cause of action alleges Defendants Bank of America,

13cv2648

Case 3:13-cv-02648-JAH-WVG Document 11 Filed 04/04/14 Page 1 of 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

Countrywide, Pacific West Mortgage, and Greenlight Mortgage Co. (collectively

“defendants”) violated the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 3. However, the Fifth Amendment

applies only to actions by the federal government, not private actors. See Rank v. Nimmo,

677 F.2d 692, 701 (9th Cir. 1982) (“The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment

applies to actions of the federal government and not to individual activities of private

actors.”). Because plaintiffs fail to state a cognizable claim under the Fifth Amendment,

this Court finds their assertion of federal law is wholly insubstantial and frivolous. See

Bell, 327 U.S. at 682-83; Franklin, 662 F.2d at 1342. Therefore, plaintiffs’ complaint is

DISMISSED without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. Moreover, this Court finds that

dismissal of the complaint renders moot plaintiffs’ motion to appoint counsel. See Doc.

# 10. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED for want of subject matter

jurisdiction; and

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint counsel is DENIED as moot. 

Dated: April 4, 2014

 

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

2 13cv2648

Case 3:13-cv-02648-JAH-WVG Document 11 Filed 04/04/14 Page 2 of 2