United States District Court, D. Oregon
DENICE SHALA JOY FARMER; SARAH RODGERS; ARIANNA BUTCHER; and TAMMY PENNINGTON, Plaintiffs,
PASSAGES TREATMENT CENTERS OF MALIBU, Defendant.
ORDER TO DISMISS
MICHAEL H. SIMON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Denice Shala Joy Farmer, an inmate at the Coffee Creek
Correctional Facility, brings this civil action pro
se Pursuant to an order entered this
date, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. However, for the reasons set forth
below, Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed.
alleges that her claim is based on "false advertising
saying passages cures addiction." In support of her
claim, she alleges as follows:
All passages commercials claim to cure addiction. You cannot
cure addiction. There is no medical sientifical [sic] cure
for alcoholism or drug addiction. Thus leading to false
advertisement. On[e] commercial states I was an addict now
I'm not. We are all overly thinking of this place because
all we want is to be cured of addiction.
of remedy, Plaintiff seeks $5 million in money damages
"for false hope."
district court must dismiss an action initiated by a
plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis if the court
determines that the action (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)(B). In
order to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege facts which,
when accepted as true, give rise to a plausible inference
that the defendants violated the plaintiffs rights.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009);
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57
(2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969
(9th Cir. 2009). "A pleading that offers labels and
conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do." Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (internal quotations omitted).
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court construes
the pleadings liberally and affords the plaintiff the benefit
of any doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). A pro se plaintiff will be given leave to
amend his or her complaint unless it is clear that the
deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment.
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1112, 1130-31 (9th Cir.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, ' possessing
'only that power authorized by Constitution and
statute." Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256
(2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Federal jurisdiction
may be based upon the presence of a federal question or on
diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff must
plead that the defendant has violated some constitutional or
statutory provision. To establish diversity jurisdiction, a
plaintiff must allege that he or she is a citizen of one
state, that all of the defendants are citizens of other
states, and that the damages are more than $75, 000.
Complaint, Plaintiff does not indicate any basis for
jurisdiction. She alleges "false advertising"
against a private entity, but does not alleges facts
establishing citizenship. As such, this Court lacks diversity
jurisdiction. Plaintiff also cites no federal constitutional,
statutory, or treaty right at issue. Because Plaintiff fails to
identify a basis for federal jurisdiction, this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the Complaint.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (court is required to
dismiss an action if the court determines that it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction); see also Butler v. Forest
Grove Police Department, No. 3:16-cv-02403-SI, 2017 WL
57129 (D. Or. Jan. 4, 2017) (dismissing Complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint is
DISMISSED for apparent lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff may
file an Amended Complaint, curing the deficiencies noted
above, within 30 days of the date of this order. Failure to