Britton v. Arizona, State of

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 29, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00636
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 David Talon Britton, No. CV-22-00636-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 State of Arizona, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and has paid the filing fee, filed a complaint on 16 April 18, 2022. (Doc. 1.) 17 The Court is obligated to determine sua sponte whether it has subject-matter 18 jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). See also 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter 20 jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). The party asserting jurisdiction bears 21 the burden of proving its existence. Cook v. AVI Casino Enters., Inc., 548 F.3d 718, 722 22 (9th Cir. 2008). 23 Here, the complaint alleges “[t]his Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant 24 to Property Damage §§ ARS 13-1602.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) The Court construes this reference 25 to A.R.S. § 13-1602 as an indication that Plaintiff only seeks to assert a state-law claim 26 for property damage. This understanding is consistent with the allegations elsewhere in 27 the complaint, which concern “damages occurring to the structure of [Plaintiff’s] car and 28 home” and “[a]dverse working conditions.” (Id. at 1-2.) Although there is a reference in 1 the “Demand” section of the complaint to “[t]he Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the 2 U.S.C.” (Doc. 1 at 2), it is not clear—to put it mildly—that Plaintiff is asserting a claim 3 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Woods v. City of Scottsdale, 2013 WL 614421, *4 (D. Ariz. 4 2013) (“While the United States Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to liberally 5 construe the ‘inartful pleading’ of pro se litigants, it is not enough to simply mention a 6 clause in the Constitution.”) (citation omitted). 7 Because Plaintiff does not state that he is seeking to invoke federal-question 8 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, he must properly allege that diversity jurisdiction 9 exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff bears this burden by a preponderance of the 10 evidence. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 1986); see also McNatt v. Allied- 11 Signal, Inc., 972 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1992). Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is 12 complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and the defendants and the 13 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 14 1332. A controversy meets this requirement when “all the persons on one side of it are 15 citizens of different states from all the persons on the other side.” Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 16 7 U.S. 267 (1806). 17 Here, although the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied—the complaint 18 states that Plaintiff is seeking $200 million in damages—the complaint is deficient 19 because it fails to affirmatively set forth the facts necessary to determine the parties’ 20 citizenship. In the caption of the complaint, Plaintiff identifies the defendants as the State 21 of Arizona, the City of Phoenix, and various private entities. (Doc. 1.) In the body of the 22 complaint, however, Plaintiff generally alleges in six consecutive sentences that “[t]he 23 defendant” is a “resident” of either Arizona, California, or Texas. (Id. at 1.) This, 24 without more, is insufficient to determine the citizenship of each defendant. Steigleder v. 25 McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143 (1905) (“[I]t has long been settled that residence and 26 citizenship were wholly different things . . . and that a mere averment of residence in a 27 particular state is not an averment of citizenship in that state for the purposes of 28 jurisdiction.”). Additionally, Plaintiff states that he is a “resident” of Arizona. (Id.) This □□ allegation is again insufficient to establish Plaintiff's citizenship. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff was intending to allege that both he and at least one of the defendants are || citizens (and not just residents) of Arizona, there would not be complete diversity. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be || able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter v. 6|| Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED that: 9 (1) Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for lack of subject-matter 10 jurisdiction with leave to file an amended complaint by May 25, 2022. 11 (2) If Plaintiff elects not to file an amended complaint by May 25, 2022, the Clerk 12 is directed to dismiss this action without further order of the Court. 13 Dated this 29th day of April, 2022. 14 15 Lm ee” 16 f t _o——— Dominic W, Lanza 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-