Clark v. Young

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [7] CARMEN L. CLARK, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-5369 [8] 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 ERIC YOUNG; MISTY YOUNG, 12 Defendants. [14] 1. INTRODUCTION [15] The Court raises this matter on its own accord. Pro se Plaintiff Carmen L. [16] Clark pursues this action against Defendants Eric Young and Misty Young in forma [17] pauperis (IFP). See Dkt. No. 4. After reviewing the operative complaint, Dkt. No. 5, [18] under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B), the Court finds that the complaint is frivolous and [19] fails to allege a basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Rather than [20] dismissing this case outright, the Court grants Clark leave to amend the complaint [21] within 30 days of this Order. [24] 1 2. DISCUSSION 2 When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the court must dismiss the 3 action if the court determines the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 4 claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant 5 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). “A complaint is frivolous 6 for 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2) purposes if a plaintiff fails to allege subject matter 7 jurisdiction.” Emiabata v. Bank of New York Mellon Tr. Co. NA/JP Morgan Chase 8 (SLS), No. C17-1302-JLR, 2017 WL 4838840 , at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 3, 2017) (citing [9] Castillo v. Marshall, 207 F.3d 15, 15 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); Pratt v. [10] Sumner, 807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 1987) (recognizing that a complaint should be [11] dismissed as frivolous on 28 U.S.C. § 1915 review where subject matter jurisdiction [12] is lacking)). [13] Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]leadings must be construed [14] so as to do justice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). Thus, a “document filed pro se is to be [15] liberally construed and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held [16] to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. [17] Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations omitted). Courts are not to “dismiss a pro [18] se complaint without leave to amend unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the [19] deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.’” Rosati v. Igbinoso, [20] 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th [21] Cir. 2012) (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir.1988) (per [22] 23 curiam))). But even so, the duties imposed on the Court by § 1915(e) are [24] 1 unwavering, and when an IFP plaintiff fails to state a claim, the action must be 2 dismissed. 3 Here, Clark sues Eric Young and Misty Young for alleged fraud. Dkt. No. 5 at 4 5. Clark alleges that “Eric Young use Carmen Clark’s name to get income to take 5 care of his son; also to purchase a truck.” Id. On the face of the complaint, Misty 6 Young’s role in the alleged fraud is unclear. Likewise, the factual specifics are also 7 unclear. Clark asserts that “Eric Young spend federal dollars forging Carmen [8] Clark’s Name to purchase material gain (‘Truck’).” Id. While this could give rise to [9] criminal charges, it is unclear how these alleged actions harmed Clark and how [10] they would give rise to civil claims she could assert against the Youngs. It is also [11] unclear whether “federal dollars” refers to welfare benefits or mere U.S. currency. [12] Even setting aside the complaint’s lack of factual clarity, the Court finds that [13] Clark fails to allege subject matter jurisdiction. Federal district courts have original [14] jurisdiction over two categories of cases: cases involving a federal question, see 28 15 U.S.C. § 1331 , and cases involving diversity of citizenship among the parties. See 28 16 U.S.C. § 1332 . Here, Clark pleads no federal question. As such, the presumptive [17] basis for subject matter jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship. [18] To invoke diversity jurisdiction, a plaintiff must allege the diverse citizenship [19] of all parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.00. Id.; Bautista v. [20] Pan Am. World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). The party asserting [21] diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proof. Resnik v. La Paz Guest Ranch, 289 [22] 23 F.2d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 1961). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a person is a [24] 1 citizen of their state of domicile at the time the lawsuit is filed. Lew v. Moss, 797 2 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1986). 3 Here, the diversity-of-citizenship requirement appears satisfied. Clark 4 alleges that she is a citizen of Washington, while Defendants are citizens of Idaho. 5 Dkt. No. 5 at 4. But the second requirement is not satisfied. Clark does not allege 6 an amount in controversy, nor does she assert that the amount in controversy 7 exceeds $75,000. See generally id. As such, Clark does not allege a basis for the [8] Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court finds that the complaint is [9] frivolous and fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. [10] 3. CONCLUSION [11] The Court finds that Clark’s complaint, Dkt. No. 5, is frivolous and fails to [12] allege a basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. But rather than dismissing [13] this case outright, the Court grants Clark leave to amend the complaint and [14] ORDERS Clark, within THIRTY (30) days of this Order, to file an amended [15] complaint that properly alleges a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court also [16] directs Clark, through the amended complaint, to clarify the factual basis for her [17] civil fraud claim. Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this [18] action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). [20] Dated this 20th day of November, 2024. [21] a [22] Jamal N. Whitehead [23] United States District Judge