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.

Propps v. Sado

United States District Court, D. Oregon

October 31, 2017

LATOYA PROPPS, CARY SAMPSON, YOLANDA ELIE, DRUCILLA BRIGGS, Plaintiffs,
v.
NEGUSSIE SADO, Defendant.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

          JOHN JELDERKS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This 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 pauperis application.

         Plaintiff 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).

         Background

         The Complaint alleges:

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 true

         Complaint at 5 (errors in the original).

         Plaintiffs 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.

         Plaintiff 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 . . . ."

         Discussion

         Federal 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).

         Jurisdiction 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.

         Furthermore, 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.

         In 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. ยง 1653. The court must liberally construe a pro se plaintiffs complaint and permit ...


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.