United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge.
an inmate at the Multnomah County Inverness Jail, brings this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a
separate Order, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. However, for the reasons set
forth below, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
brings this suit against his former apartment complex in
Beaverton, as well as its manager, maintenance worker,
leasing agents, and parent corporation. He raises First and
Fourth Amendment claims pertaining to a dispute he had with
the property manager over his use of his assigned garage and
whether Plaintiff was improperly running a business out of
the garage. Plaintiff claims that Defendants invaded his
privacy, causing him fear and anxiety in his own home as well
as property loss. He seeks damages totaling at least $80,
Basis for Jurisdiction
seeks to establish jurisdiction in federal court via both
diversity of citizenship and by posing federal constitutional
questions. District courts have diversity subject matter
jurisdiction with respect to all "civil actions where
the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,
000, exclusive of interests and cost," and the action is
"between citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1). A person is deemed to be a citizen of the
state in which he is domiciled, and domicile is determined by
"physical presence at a given location and an intent to
remain there indefinitely." Lew v. Moss, 797
F.2d 747, 749-52 (9th Cir. 1986).
case, Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants are Oregon
citizens, and that he is a citizen of New York "living
in Oregon on an extended holiday." While Plaintiff may
be a New York citizen despite his extended presence in
Oregon, the Court need not resolve the question of Plaintiff
s citizenship because federal question jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is clear where Plaintiff raises both
First And Fourteenth Amendment claims.
is appropriate if Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6)
. The Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state
a claim, however, unless it appears beyond doubt that
Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim
which would entitle him to relief. Terracom v. Valley
Nat'1 Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 1995).
for failure to state a claim is a ruling on a question of
law. Parks School of Business, Inc., v. Symington,
51 F.3d 1480, 1483 (9th Cir. 1995). Review is limited to the
contents of the Complaint and any attached exhibits.
Id. at 1484. Allegations of fact in the Complaint
must be taken as true and construed in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Id. From the
facts alleged, the court also must draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Usher v. City
of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). But
conclusory allegations, without more, are insufficient to
defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
McGlinchy v. Shell Chemical Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810
(9th Cir. 1988).
asserts First and Fourth Amendment claims pertaining to the
Defendants' alleged invasion of his privacy and improper
search and seizure of his apartment and its belongings. The
Court liberally construes these claims as arising under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. A plaintiff wishing to bring a cause of
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must .demonstrate
compliance with the following factors: (1) a violation of
rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal
statute; (2) proximately caused; (3) by conduct of a person;
(4) acting under color of state law. Crumpton v.
Gates,947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. ...