Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01537/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01537-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Mendoza
Plaintiff
Sky Harbor Inn
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

David Mendoza,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sky Harbor Inn,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1537-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This case arises upon the Court’s review of pro se Plaintiff’s August 23, 2010

filing, doc. 9, which the Court construes as his response to the Court’s August 13, 2010

Order to Show Cause, doc. 8, and the file as a whole. For the following reasons, the Court

will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for

failure to allege a plausible claim and for failure to comply with court orders. The Clerk will

be directed to terminate this case.

I. Background.

On July 20, 2010, Plaintiff David Mendoza commenced this action by filing

a pro se Complaint against Defendant Sky Harbor Inn, presumably a non-governmental

business located near Phoenix’ Sky Harbor Airport. Overlooking his use of a complaint form

entitled “Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner,” it is impossible to determine Plaintiff’s

claim for relief in the pro se Complaint’s rambling, 52-pages from its initial recitation of

American history to a discussion of SB 1070, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the Dream Act, and Senator

Case 2:10-cv-01537-LOA Document 10 Filed 08/26/10 Page 1 of 6
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 -

John McCain with an additional 26 pages of attached exhibits (newspaper articles regarding

SB 1070). (Doc. 1) Plaintiff consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§636(c) on August 3, 2010. (Doc. 7)

Because the Court is required to give some guidance to a pro se plaintiff

regarding the deficiencies in a pro se complaint, Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839

F.2d 621, 625 (9th Cir. 1988), the Court sua sponte entered its July 22, 2010 order. (Doc. 5)

This order informed Plaintiff that his “Complaint grossly fails to comply with Rule 8(a) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; fails to state a claim for relief; and, perhaps more

importantly, [] fails to cite any federal statute, or allege facts, indicating why this District

Court, a court of limited jurisdiction, has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s action,

e.g. 28 U.S.C. § 1331(federal-question jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of

citizenship and amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00).” (Id. at 2) The Court ordered

Plaintiff to “amend his Complaint to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and set forth sufficient facts to establish a plausible claim against Defendant in full

compliance with Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) and Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544(2007) . . . .” (Id.) The Court’s July 22, 2010 order quoted

the relevant portions of Rule 8(a) and (d), Fed.R.Civ.P., and explained the directives of the

Supreme Court in Twombly and Iqbal. (Id. at 3-4) Also, the Clerk of the Court was directed

to provide Plaintiff with a copy of “Filing A Complaint In Your Own Behalf” to assist him

in drafting an appropriate amended complaint. Finally, the Court ordered Plaintiff “that on

or before Friday, August 6, 2010, Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint in

compliance with Rule 8(a), FED.R.CIV. P., and LRCiv.7.1 which shall contain a short and

plain statement of his factual and legal allegations against the Defendant, specify the Court’s

jurisdictional basis, and clarify the civil right’s or other federal or state statute(s) upon which

Plaintiff is relying to support his claim(s).” (Id. at 4) (emphasis in original).

Due to the absence of a timely filed First Amended Complaint, on August 13,

2010, the Court ordered Plaintiff to “show cause in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on

Tuesday, August 24, 2010 why this lawsuit should not be dismissed without prejudice for

Case 2:10-cv-01537-LOA Document 10 Filed 08/26/10 Page 2 of 6
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 -

failing to comply with the Court’s prior orders.” (Doc. 8 at 2) Plaintiff was further informed

that if he complied with the Court’s July 22, 2010 orders on or before August 24, 2010, the

Court would “automatically discharge and vacate this OSC without imposing any sanctions.”

(Id.) Conversely, Plaintiff was warned, for the second time, see doc. 5 at 4-5, that if he failed

to timely comply with the Court’s orders this case would be dismissed in its entirety. (Id.)

On August 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a 34-page document which the Court

construes as his response to the Court’s August 13, 2010 Order to Show Cause. (Doc. 9) The

first six pages contain Plaintiff’s criticisms of presumably the Sky Harbor Inn, apparently an

apartment complex he describes as a “slumlord Roach Motel,” id. at 4, and the last 22 pages

contain copies of Sex Offender Notifications of presumably registered sex offenders who

purportedly live at 2333 E. Van Buren, Phoenix. It is clearly not an amended complaint. Even

if Plaintiff intended his response to be an amended complaint, it fails to set forth the basis of

federal jurisdiction and a plausible claim against Defendant Sky Harbor Inn.

II. Federal Jurisdiction.

“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, a federal district 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). In other words, a federal court may only hear those cases the Constitution

and Congress have authorized; namely, cases involving diversity of citizenship, a federal

question, or cases to which the United States is a party. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.

“The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving all jurisdictional

facts.” Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing

McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)); Fenton v. Freedman,

748 F.2d 1358, 1359, n. 1 (9th Cir. 1984). Courts must presume a lack of jurisdiction until

the plaintiff proves otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. To overcome that presumption,

the plaintiff must provide a statement of the grounds for the federal court’s subject matter

Case 2:10-cv-01537-LOA Document 10 Filed 08/26/10 Page 3 of 6
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 -

jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (“A pleading . . . must contain (1) a short and plain statement

of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction[.]”).

 Pursuant to federal statutes, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a

case only if (a) the complaint alleges a federal claim (“federal question jurisdiction”) or (b)

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states

(“diversity jurisdiction”). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). 

For federal question jurisdiction, section 1331 does not itself create federal

jurisdiction; it “confers jurisdiction only where a federal question is otherwise at issue.” Ellis

v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227, 229 (9th Cir. 1980). In general, a federal question invokes a “right

or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Gully v. First Nat’l

Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112 (1936). That federal right or immunity “must be an element, and

an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Id. While not an infallible rule, if federal

law creates the cause of action, federal question jurisdiction will generally lie. Murphey v.

Lanier, 204 F.3d 911, 912 (9th Cir.2000); Am. Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241

U.S. 257, 260 (1916) (“A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.”).

For diversity jurisdiction, section 1332 requires complete diversity between

the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See, e.g., Caterpillar, Inc. v.

Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). In other words, the citizenship of each plaintiff must be

diverse from the citizenship of each defendant. Id. In determining the existence of diversity

jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and the state where

it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, ___ U.S.

___, 130 S.Ct. 1181 (2010) (a corporation’s principal place of business, for diversity

jurisdiction purposes, is its nerve center, abrogating Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better

Environment, 236 F.3d 495, 500-502 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).

III. The Court’s Inherent Power.

Because a district court has the inherent power to control its docket, it may

exercise that power by imposing sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal of a case.

Case 2:10-cv-01537-LOA Document 10 Filed 08/26/10 Page 4 of 6
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 -

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995) (public

interest “in expeditious resolution of litigation,” district court’s need to manage its docket,

risk of prejudice to party seeking sanctions, public policy favoring disposition on the merits,

availability of lesser sanctions, bad faith of violating party, relationship between conduct and

merits); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to

comply with a court order); Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir.

1984) (personal responsibility of party, prejudice to other party, history of dilatory conduct,

willfulness or bad faith, other sanctions, merits of claim or defense). 

 In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with court

orders, district courts consider and weigh five factors: (1) the public interest; (2) the district

court’s need to manage the docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

alternatives. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61. Additionally, Plaintiff’s failure in this case to

comply with court orders is frustrating the court’s responsibilities mandated by Rule 1,

FED.R.CIV.P., (“These rules . . . shall be construed and administered to secure the just,

speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”) (emphasis added), and by the Civil

Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. §471 et seq., such as, “setting early, firm trial dates,

such that the trial is scheduled to occur to occur within eighteen months after the filing of the

complaint. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 473(a)(2) (emphasis added). A pro se plaintiff’s status does not

discharge his obligation to “abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates.” Carter v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986).

After considering and weighing all five Ferdik factors to determine if dismissal is appropriate due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s prior orders, the

Court concludes that the lesser sanction of dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint without

prejudice is appropriate and just under the circumstances. 

IV. Conclusion.

Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no explanation of his claims and no statement

Case 2:10-cv-01537-LOA Document 10 Filed 08/26/10 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

of the basis for jurisdiction. (Doc. 1) Plaintiff’s claims are not brought under any identified

federal statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor does the Complaint assert that the parties are citizens

of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Additionally, even if Plaintiff is attempting to

establish a federal question § 1983 claim against Sky Harbor Inn, a seemingly private entity,

Plaintiff must prove that (1) Sky Harbor Inn acted under color of law and (2) violated

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1147 (9th Cir. 1989);

Morris v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 277 F.3d 743, 747 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Having failed to allege a basis for federal jurisdiction, failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a plausible claim under Supreme Court precedent, and failed to

comply with prior court orders, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, doc. 1, is dismissed without

prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to allege sufficient facts to state a

plausible claim, and failure to comply with prior court orders. The Clerk of Court is directed

to terminate this action.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot

(see Doc. 4).

Dated this 25th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01537-LOA Document 10 Filed 08/26/10 Page 6 of 6