United States District Court, D. Oregon
LATOYA PROPPS, CARY SAMPSON, YOLANDA ELIE, DRUCILLA BRIGGS, Plaintiffs,
NEGUSSIE SADO, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
JELDERKS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
action is brought by pro se Plaintiff LaToya Propps,
who is purportedly joined by pro se Plaintiffs
Sampson, Elie, and Briggs. Plaintiffs allege they were
"displaced" from their housing and that their
credit has been negatively affected due to misrepresentations
about their rental history. The Complaint comprises a
court-provided Complaint form completed by hand and a
separate handwritten page listing Plaintiffs Sampson, Elie
and Briggs. Complete addresses are provided for Plaintiffs
Propps and Sampson. However, only phone numbers and
"Portland, OR 97217" are given for Plaintiffs Elie
and Briggs. In addition, only Plaintiff Propps has signed the
Complaint. Plaintiff Propps has also submitted a signed
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
No other Plaintiffs have submitted an in forma
Propps' motion for in forma pauperis status is
granted. However, for the reasons set forth below, the
Complaint should be dismissed, without service of process,
for lack of jurisdiction and on the basis that it fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See
FRCP 12(h)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
tenants were displaced at the end of May 2017. defendant lied
to plaintiff about moving waited until a week before they had
to be out to tell them they stilled needed to move, later
plaintiff have tried to find a place and been unable to due
to defendant placing a eviction on their credit, which is not
at 5 (errors in the original).
seek to have their credit repaired and negative information
removed from their rental history. In addition, they seek
$10, 000 "right away" for "personal
needs" and $250, 000 "at the convenience of the
court." Complaint at 5-6.
Propps has also filed a Motion for Order titled "Demand
for Payment by Court."[#3]. In her motion, Plaintiff
"demand[s] payment of the court for family needs . . .
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are presumed to
lack jurisdiction over a case unless proven otherwise.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511
U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal district courts may hear only
those cases that are within the judicial power conferred by
the United States Constitution or by statute. Richardson
v. United States, 943 F.2d 1107, 1112-13 (9th
Cir.1991), cert, denied, 503 U.S. 936 (1992).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h) requires this court to
dismiss an action "[w]henever it appears by suggestion
of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction
of the subject matter." See also, Augustine v.
United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077
(9th Cir. 1983). A court may dismiss an action
sua sponte if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
See, e.g., Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v.
Mustek, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974).
must be based on either diversity of citizenship for cases
involving more than $75, 000 in damages between citizens of
different states or on a claim based on the United States
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a complaint filed
in forma pauperis must be dismissed before service
of process if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief.
order to state a viable claim, the plaintiff must allege
"enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662 (2009)(specifically
applying Twombly analysis beyond the context of the
Sherman Act). In addition, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(1), every complaint must contain "a short
and plain statement of the grounds for the court's
jurisdiction...." However, "[d]efective allegations
of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or
appellate courts." 28 U.S.C. § 1653. The court must
liberally construe a pro se plaintiffs complaint and permit