Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06299/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06299-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jacobs & Slawsky
Defendant
Jimmie Stringer
Plaintiff

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMIE STRINGER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JACOBS & SLAWSKY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-6299 SI

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

OnOctober 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant “Jacobs

& Slawsky.” Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The complaint stated that

plaintiff seeks a jury decision “for deprivation of right in criminal and civil RICO treble and tort relief

against former repersent [sic] firm Jacobs & Slawsky for settlement in federal court.” The complaint

referred to a lawsuit in Georgia that was remanded to state court, and plaintiff attached what appears

to be the last page of a remand order dated June 29, 2001. The complaint listed five claims for relief for

breach of contract, extortion, “settlement,” racial discrimination, and various tort claims. Plaintiff also

filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

By order filed October 16, 2006, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2). The Court held that plaintiff’s complaint did not establish any basis for federal

jurisdiction, and instructed plaintiff that if he wished to amend the complaint, he must specifically

identify the claims asserted and the facts supporting those claims. In addition, the Court noted that if

plaintiff intended to allege claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege facts showing why the

defendant law firm was liable under § 1983. In another order filed November 6, 2006, the Court granted

Case 3:06-cv-06299-SI Document 8 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 attached to his original complaint a “Monetary Agreement,” signed only by plaintiff,

stating that plaintiff will receive $19,000,000 in connection with “file no.: 1:00-cv-2214-sbh C-Action

suit.” 

2

plaintiff an extension of time to amend the complaint, and also noted that because defendant appeared

to be a resident of Georgia, this Court would not have jurisdiction over defendant unless defendant had

done something in or specifically directed at California.

On November 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a document titled “Disable[d] Petitioner Seek Subpoena

Duces Tecum in Full Discovery Leading in the Demand for Jury Trial in Oral Discussion for Monetary

Settlement Pursuant to Federal Rule 38.” Notwithstanding the title, plaintiff’s November 20, 2006 filing

appears to be an amended complaint as it sets forth causes of action and lists relief sought. Accordingly,

the Court will construe this document as an amended complaint.

The Court concludes that plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies in the complaint, and thus

that it should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Liberally construed, the amended

complaint alleges both diversity and federal question jurisdiction. With regard to diversity jurisdiction,

plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy is satisfied because plaintiff is seeking $19,000,000 in

damages. The precise basis for plaintiff’s damages claim is unclear, although the damages appear to

stem from a $19,000,000 settlement agreement drafted by plaintiff that defendant apparently did not

sign.1 The Court finds that plaintiff’s allegation that there is $19,000,000 in controversy is patently

frivolous, and thus does not provide a basis for diversity jurisdiction.

Similarly, plaintiff’s complaint does not establish any basis for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s

amended complaint appears to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, the complaint does

not contain any allegation that (1) “the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under

color of state law” and that (2) “this conduct deprived the claimant of a constitutional right.” Ranker v.

County of Napa, 831 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1987). Although the complaint references the Americans

with Disabilities Act, there are no allegations that defendant discriminated against plaintiff on the basis

of disability. Finally, to the extent the Court can discern the facts giving rise to plaintiff’s claims, there

does not appear to be any basis for personal jurisdiction over defendant. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND pursuant

Case 3:06-cv-06299-SI Document 8 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

to Section 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06299-SI Document 8 Filed 11/27/06 Page 3 of 3