United States District Court, D. Oregon
Cecil Jerome Hatchett, Portland, Oregon, Plaintiff pro se.
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL H. SIMON, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Cecil Jerome Hatchett, filed a pro se Complaint in forma pauperis on August 26, 2014. Dkt. 2. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 1, and moved for the appointment of a pro bono attorney. Dkt. 3. On August 29, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, denied Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro bono counsel, and dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint. Dkt. 5. Plaintiff was given 30 days to file an amended Complaint if he could cure the deficiencies identified in the Court's order.
On September 25, 2014 Plaintiff filed a two-page document, Dkt. 7, which the Court construes as Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Even under the liberal pleading standards afforded to pro se plaintiffs, however, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed.
A court must liberally construe the filings of a pro se plaintiff and afford the plaintiff the benefit of any reasonable doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). "A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.'" Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000)). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), however, every complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." This standard "does not require detailed factual allegations, '" but does demand "more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "A pleading that offers labels and conclusions' or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
A complaint filed in forma pauperis may be dismissed at any time, including before service of process, if the court determines that:
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Gunn v. Minton, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 1064 (2013) (citation omitted). As such, a court is to presume "that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted); see also Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683, 685 (9th Cir. 2009); Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court must dismiss any case over which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). The court has "an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). The court may therefore raise the question of subject-matter jurisdiction on its own initiative at any stage in the litigation. Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 506. "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (emphasis added).
"Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts." 28 U.S.C. § 1653. It is improper to dismiss an action based on a defective allegation of jurisdiction without leave to amend "unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by amendment." Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 828 n.6 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 692 (9th Cir. 2001)).
Plaintiff' brings suit against U.S. Bank, Ocwen Federal Loan (Ocwen"), and Mulliniam Group Loan ("Mulliniam"). In his original Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants tricked him into accepting an "illegal" loan and took advantage of him either while he was incarcerated or because he had been incarcerated. Plaintiff claimed that Defendants conspired to steal his property in violation of both state and federal law. Plaintiff also claimed that he had suffered 16 billion dollars in damages because of the "criminal acts" of the Defendants. Plaintiff asserted federal question jurisdiction as the basis of the Court's jurisdiction over his claims. The Court ...