Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Knight v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

December 12, 2013

PARKER MICHAEL KNIGHT, Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

PARKER MICHAEL KNIGHT, Portland, OR, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

S. AMANDA MARSHALL, United States Attorney, JAMES E. COX, JR., Assistant United States Attorney, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

ANNA J. BROWN, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion (#5) to Dismiss. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion.

BACKGROUND

On July 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in Multnomah County Circuit Court in which he alleges Defendant

[p]osted a job announcement on USAJOBS.GOV.... FDA was received [Plaintiff's] information from USAJOBS.GOV and contacted [Plaintiff] for in-person interview. The [Plaintiff] was asked several dozen questions during half an hour interview on the phone. [Plaintiff] was asked illegal questions regarding his disabilities. [Plaintiff] was treated badly by FDA agents [as] being disabled on interview by interview-er. The petitioner did not get the job applied for.

Compl. at ¶ II.

Plaintiff alleges he "feel[s] [an] American Disability Act... violation has occurred based on [his] disability, race, and age." Plaintiff also alleges the following in Counts I through III:

Defendant and or his agents willfully, maliciously and intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff.

* * *

Defendant and or his agents have intentional[ly], maliciously, and without just cause, slandered the Plaintiff's names, business and reputation[] in the community by making knowingly false, malicious and intentional statements about the Plaintiff, Plaintiff's family, and the Plaintiff's business.
* * *
Defendant and or [its] agents have intentionally, maliciously and without just cause, engaged in deceitful business practices and malicious and intentional fraud that were calculated to harm the Plaintiff[] and [his] business.

Compl. at ¶¶ III-V.

On August 6, 2013, Defendant removed the matter to this Court as an agency of the United States government pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).

On August 21, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and that Plaintiff failed to state a claim. Plaintiff did not file a response, and the Court took Defendant's Motion under advisement on October 15, 2013.

STANDARDS

I. Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)

Plaintiff has the burden to establish that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Robinson v. Geithner, 359 F.Appx. 726, 728 (9th cir. 2009). See also Ass'n of Am. Med. Coll. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2000).

When deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), the court may consider affidavits and other evidence supporting or attacking the complaint's jurisdictional allegations. Rivas v. Napolitano, 714 F.3d 1108, 1114 n.1 (9th Cir. 2013). The court may permit discovery to determine whether it has jurisdiction. Laub v. United States Dep't of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). When a defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction "is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.