Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00414/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00414-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Maurice Jackson, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

City Court, 

Defendant. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 07-414-TUC- JMR (JM)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a)(1). Docket No. 2. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

The determination that Plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the

required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case

at any time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief

against an immune defendant. Here, it appears from the face of the complaint that the Court

is without jurisdiction and, therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief could

be granted.

Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions, Kokkonen v.

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), and are required to examine

jurisdictional issues, even sua sponte if necessary, B.C. v. Plumas Unified School Dist., 192

F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999). "The party seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction bears

the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists." Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th

Cir. 1986). 

Case 4:07-cv-00414-JR Document 6 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff has also filed three additional complaints against Defendant “City Court.” See

Docket Nos. 3, 4 and 5. These complaints, which have been docketed as supplements, do not

contain additional factual allegations, but do contain jurisdictional allegations that are similar to

those offered in the original complaint.

2

Subject matter jurisdiction may exist based on a federal question based on 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331. As a general matter, federal courts have jurisdiction pursuant to section 1331 over

civil actions "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Id.

Federal jurisdiction can also exist based on the diversity of the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Under section 1332, the district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions

"between . . . citizens of different States" where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

On August 21, 2007, Plaintiff, a resident of Tucson, Arizona, filed his complaint in

this action alleging as follows:

This letter is in regards to have an request of an investigation

done, on the behalf of my Drivers license, I’m requesting a

response form an investigater to find a desolution of This case.

There has previously attemps to find correct evidence and facts

in regarding of certain documents with correct information of

alledged traffic citations. I’ve gone many time to the City Court

Building to make payments towards my license, but there’s

always a hindrance I’‘ve also matched citations Dockets

numbers that didn’t correlate to the information that the Motor

Vehicle Department have given to me; to take down there in

order to receive my Drivers license, I feel that my rights have

been violated, and I would like to put in a Judgment based on a

discovery, indiposition to regards Articles: in Remitters= Legal

Porcedures 10 Article 41-1005 rule and title 16 Article 4 Section

R2 16-40

Complaint, Docket No. 1., p. 2 (sic).1

 Additionally, in the complaint under the heading

“Jurisdiction,” Plaintiff has provided the following: “General Order 4-26;” Administration

Legal Procedures Article 41-1005;” “Rule & Title #16;” “Article 4 Section R-2 16-40;”

“Section R=54.9] 59.61 [8.20 [8.64 [58.5;” “COA Rule II process;” “D.D Rule 30(b);” and

“FRC R4 (part D).” Complaint, p. 1. 

Plaintiff has not cited in these allegations a federal constitutional provision, law or

treaty from which his claim arises. It also appears from the face of the complaint that

Case 4:07-cv-00414-JR Document 6 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 3
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

diversity does not exist between he and the Defendant, both of whom look to be citizens of

Arizona. Unless a complaint presents a plausible assertion of a substantial federal right, a

federal court does not have jurisdiction. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1945). 

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

without prepayment of costs or fees or the necessity of giving security therefore [Docket No.

2], be granted.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Complaint be dismissed without

prejudice.

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 

However, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 07-414-TUCJMR. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues.

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

DATED this 28th day of September, 2007.

Case 4:07-cv-00414-JR Document 6 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 3