Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01105/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01105-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stanley Fishman
Plaintiff
Spring Valley Apartments
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Stanley Fishman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Spring Valley Apartments, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1105-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises on the Court's review of the file. On June 4, 2007, Plaintiff

Stanley Fishman (“Fishman”) filed a pro se Complaint against Defendant Spring Valley

Apartments. (docket # 1) On the same day, Plaintiff expressly consented in writing to

magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and filed a

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (docket # 3 and # 4)

I. Standard for Reviewing Complaint

The district court is required to screen complaints brought by litigants who

request, or have been granted, leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Denton v. Hernandez, 504

U.S. 25, 27 (1992); Jones v. Social Sec. Admin., 2007 WL 806628 (E.D. Cal. 2007). Title

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) provides that the district court "shall dismiss a case at any time if it

determines that . . . the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint is legally frivolous

Case 2:07-cv-01105-LOA Document 5 Filed 06/08/07 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

1

 Rule 12(h)(3) provides:

(3) Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court

lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.

2

 2:07-cv-00586-FJM; 2:07-cv-00587-SMM ; 2:07-cv-00588-ROS

 2:07-cv-00589-RCB;2:07-cv-00590-DGC; 2:07-cv-00591-MEA; 

 2:07-cv-00619-DKD; 2:07-cv-00620-LOA; 2:07-cv-00621-NVW; 

 2:07-cv-00809-DKD; 2:07-cv-01105-LOA; 2:07-cv-01106-LOA

 2:07-cv-01107-MHM; 2:07-cv-01108-DGC; 2:07-cv-01109-LOA

 2:07-cv-01116-ECV; 3:07-cv-00592-MHB; 3:07-cv-00593-JWS

 3:07-cv-08026-NVW; 4:07-cv-00137-JMR; 4:07-cv-00138-JJM

3

 Whether any court-wide consequences are imposed upon Fishman as a vexatious

litigant will abide another day and another judge. Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of

Commerce, Inc., 705 F.2d 1515, 1524 (9th Cir.1983) (“district courts do have the power to

reinforce the effects of [collateral estoppel and res judicata] by issuing an injunction against

repetitive litigation”), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1081 (1984); In re Hartford Textile Corp., 681

F.2d 895, 897 (2d Cir.1982) ( “[t]he equity power of a court to give injunctive relief against

- 2 -

within the meaning of § 1915 “where it lacks any arguable basis either in law or in fact.”

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221 (9th

Cir.1984). Moreover, pursuant to Rule 12(h), FED.R.CIV.P., a district court must dismiss an

action whenever it appears that the district court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3),1

 the Court will consider as a threshold matter whether it has

subject-matter jurisdiction. 

The district court may take judicial notice of its own files and records. U.S. v.

Author Svcs., Inc., 804 F.2d 1520, 1522 (9th Cir.1986.) Court records reflect that Fishman

has filed twenty-one (21) pro se lawsuits in the District Court of Arizona in 2007 against the

same and different defendants.2

 Most, if not all, of Fishman’s complaints are accompanied

by a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Unquestionably, Fishman has become

a vexatious litigant.3

Case 2:07-cv-01105-LOA Document 5 Filed 06/08/07 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

vexatious litigation is an ancient one which has been codified in the All Writs Statute, 28

U.S.C. § 1651(a)”), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1206, (1983).

- 3 -

One of Fishman’s lawsuits was CV-07-0620-PHX-LOA (Fishman v. Mel Clayton

Ford) wherein the undersigned Magistrate Judge, after explaining in detail the complaint’s

jurisdictional deficiencies and giving Fishman an opportunity to amend his complaint,

dismissed that lawsuit without prejudice for failure to allege and establish subject-matter

jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). In another of Fishman’s cases, CV-07-0590-

PHX-DGC (Fishman v. Spring Valley Apartments), District Judge David G. Campbell

similarly gave Fishman a fair opportunity to amend his complaint “to file an amended

complaint that properly invokes the Court’s jurisdiction.” (docket # 4 at.2) Instead of timely

complying with Judge Campbell’s order by the deadline of April 20, 2007, Fishman filed a

whole new lawsuit on June 4, 2007 against the same Defendants, Spring Valley Apartments,

attempting to circumvent Judge Campbell’s order in CV-07-0590-PHX-DGC that Fishman’s

amended complaint must properly invoke the Court’s limited jurisdiction as Judge Campbell,

the undersigned, and other federal judges have explained to Fishman in detail. The abovecaptioned lawsuit is now “Spring Valley Apartments II.”

II. 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)); 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 it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks

jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”).

Case 2:07-cv-01105-LOA Document 5 Filed 06/08/07 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 -

In this case, just like the same suit Fishman filed in CV-07-0590-PHX-DGC

assigned to Judge Campbell, Fishman’s complaint does not contain a sufficient statement of

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[.]”). “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 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under

the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (“The district

courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between – (1) citizens of different States[.]”).

Mindful that district courts construe pro se pleadings liberally, Haines v. Kerner,

404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), "[p]ro se litigants must [still] follow the same rules of procedure

as other litigants." King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) Here, overlooking that

Fishman improperly attempted to circumvent Judge Campbell’s order by filing a new lawsuit

rather than amending the earlier one against Spring Valley Apartments, Fishman’s Complaint

again fails to allege the statutory basis for subject-matter jurisdiction to authorize this Court

to proceed with this litigation. Fishman was advised in CV-07-0620-PHX-LOA on May 25,

2007: “A civil litigant may not . . . prosecute a lawsuit in federal court just because he

believes his interests will be more fairly treated in federal court than in state court unless the

district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over his claim.” (docket # 17) His allegation in

the Complaint herein that “I could not get a fair hearing or trial in any other Courts in

Maricopa, Pinal and any other parts of Arizona” is insufficient to establish federal subjectmatter jurisdiction.

In light of Fishman’s multiple filings against these Defendants of essentially the

same claims, Fishman’s failure to comply with multiple court orders by different federal

Case 2:07-cv-01105-LOA Document 5 Filed 06/08/07 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 -

judges addressing the same issue, Fishman’s continued failure to show a basis for federal

jurisdiction and it appearing that giving Fishman another opportunity to amend his Complaint

in this case would not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction, this lawsuit will be

dismissed with prejudice. Fishman is not entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond

because the dismissal is for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc., 336

F.3d. at 985. 

Fishman was well-advised by District Judge Martone on April 5, 2007 when

dismissing CV-07-586-PHX-FJM for failure to show a basis for federal jurisdiction that

“plaintiff seek the advice of counsel before proceeding further in this court. If he does not

have a lawyer, he may wish to contact the Volunteer Lawyers Program sponsored by

Community Legal Services and the Maricopa County Bar Association at 602-258-3434.”

(docket # 4 and # 8)

IT IS ORDERED that this lawsuit is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted in this federal court, i.e., lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis is DENIED as moot. (docket # 4)

DATED this 7th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01105-LOA Document 5 Filed 06/08/07 Page 5 of 5