Stiles v. Kahn

[6] 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [9] STEVEN FOSTER STILES, et al., 10 Case No. 24-cv-00558-RS Plaintiffs, [11] v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 12 LACK OF JURISDICTION CAROLINE ZAPP KAHN, et al., [13] Defendants. [14] 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Pro se plaintiff Steven Foster Stiles brings suit against at least nine defendants averring 17 violation of “17 Federal Laws and State Laws” including “Federal Attempted Murder,” “Federal 18 Battery,” “Federal False Imprisonment,” and others.1 See Dkt. 1, at 14. Stiles also seeks a 19 temporary restraining order (“TRO”) on the grounds a named Defendant and his spouse trespassed 20 on his property, stole from him, and committed other bad acts. For the reasons below, this action is 21 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Stiles’ TRO motion is denied as moot. 22 II. BACKGROUND 23 This case was transferred to the Northern District from the Eastern District on the grounds 24 this action concerns property located in the Northern District. Before this transfer, Stiles filed a [26] 1 As Magistrate Judge Carolyn Delaney noted before this action was transferred, though Stiles lists multiple Plaintiffs in his Complaint and Amended Complaint, he alone appears to have signed [27] both filings. Stiles, a non-lawyer, cannot represent other plaintiffs. See Johns v. County of San 1 560-page Amended Complaint,2 see Dkt. 42, along with a motion for a TRO, see Dkt. 43. The 2 Amended Complaint brings claims against a host of entities not named in the Complaint, including 3 several universities and pharmaceutical companies. The TRO motion claims a single named 4 Defendant—Blaine Truman Lowry—and his spouse committed an array of crimes against Stiles, 5 including burglarizing Stiles’ property. 6 III. LEGAL STANDARD 7 Federal courts possess limited jurisdiction. See United States v. Castillo, 496 F.3d 947 , 951 8 (9th Cir. 2007). Federal jurisdiction, therefore, may not be presumed; instead, a complaint must 9 allege sufficient facts to establish its existence. See Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 10 F.2d 1221 , 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). If, at any time, a court determines that subject matter jurisdiction 11 is absent, it must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A court may raise the issue of 12 whether subject matter jurisdiction exists sua sponte. See, e.g., Fiedler v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77 , 78– 13 79 (9th Cir. 1983). District courts have original jurisdiction over suits that present a federal 14 question or involve diversity of citizenship and meet the statutory amount in controversy. See 28 15 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332. “Dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because of the inadequacy 16 of the federal claim is proper only when the claim is so insubstantial, implausible . . . or otherwise 17 completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a 18 Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998). 19 Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 20 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Where dismissal of a complaint is warranted, “[a] pro se litigant 21 must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies 22 of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, [23] 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Leave to 24 amend need not be granted when amendment would be futile. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815 , [26] 2 The Amended Complaint was filed outside of the time period prescribed by Federal Rule of 27 Procedure 15(a) and without leave of the court or Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), (2). 1 845 (9th Cir. 1995). 2 IV. DISCUSSION 3 Stiles’ original Complaint invokes diversity jurisdiction as the basis for subject matter 4 jurisdiction in this action. See Dkt. 1, at 5 (asserting “Plaintiffs and Defendants live in different 5 States”). However, both Stiles and several Defendants, by the Complaint’s own averments, appear 6 to be citizens of California such that diversity jurisdiction is not present. See Lee v. Am. Nat. Ins. 7 Co., 260 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (diversity jurisdiction present only where no plaintiff 8 resides in the same State as any defendant). The question, then, is whether the Complaint asserts a 9 federal question establishing federal question jurisdiction. 10 Stiles’ Complaint charges various Defendants with aggravated kidnapping, violation of the 11 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, elder abuse, attempted murder, 12 battery, false imprisonment, and other crimes. See, e.g., Dkt. 1, at 14. His Amended Complaint 13 adds a number of new Defendants (such that there are 27 Defendants named in the Amended 14 Complaint). At least one other federal court has dismissed similar claims asserted by Stiles, 15 finding the disjointed allegations and facts presented in an extensive, often duplicative complaint 16 failed to make out a RICO claim, that Stiles had no private right of action for alleged federal 17 crimes, and that other claims were barred under Rooker-Feldman. See Stiles v. Kahn, No. 3:23-cv18 577-YY, 2023 WL 4494350 , at *1–2 (D. Or. May 16, 2023), R.&R. adopted, 2023 WL 4490517 19 (D. Or. July 12, 2023). 20 In his Complaint, Stiles refers to several Defendants as “psychopaths” and claims the 21 Defendants are engaged in a “Master Plan” to abuse the Oregon state courts to force Stiles into 22 mental health treatment programs, to steal from Stiles, and to commit other crimes. See Dkt. 1. 23 Stiles’ motion for a TRO adds to this morass of accusations, averring that Defendant Lowry and 24 his spouse committed various crimes on Stiles’ property. Taken together, these allegations appear 25 frivolous and do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. 26 V. CONCLUSION 27 For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject 1 matter jurisdiction. This dismissal is without leave to amend as amendment would be futile. Stiles’ 2 || motion for a temporary restraining order is dismissed as moot. The Clerk shall close the file in this 3 action. [4] 5 || ITISSO ORDERED. [6] 7 Dated: February 1, 2024 g RICHARD SEEBORG 9 Chief United States District Judge [13] © [16] = 17 Z 18 [27] 28 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION CASE No. 24-cv-00558-RS