Cairnes v. Hemminger

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 BRADLEY RAY CAIRNES, CASE NO. C24-0486-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 PAMELA HEMMINGER, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed in forma pauperis is subject to sua 16 sponte review and dismissal by the Court “at any time” to the extent it is “frivolous, malicious, 17 fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek[s] monetary relief from a 18 defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 19 845 (9th Cir. 2001). And while the Court holds pro se plaintiffs to less stringent pleading 20 standards and liberally construes a pro se complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, 21 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), they remain bound by the rules of procedure. See 22 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). 23 According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must include a short plain 24 statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, along with a description of the claim 25 establishing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief and a description of the relief sought. See Fed. R. 26 Civ. P. 8. And because subject matter jurisdiction is a foundational issue, the Court must dismiss 1 a complaint any time it appears that it has no jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see Safe Air 2 for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (allegations must support the court’s 3 subject matter jurisdiction). Federal question jurisdiction exists where a plaintiff’s claim arises 4 “under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Diversity of 5 citizenship jurisdiction exists where the amount at issue in the lawsuit is more than $75,000 and 6 no plaintiffs or defendants are citizens of the same state. See id. § 1332. 7 Based on the Court’s review of the instant complaint, it finds that Plaintiff’s allegations 8 fail to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (2). 9 According to Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction because “U.S. Code 10 Title 38 . . . governs the rights of veterans and their property.” (Dkt. No. 5 at 1.) But the citation 11 is inapt. Plaintiff’s case is a quiet title action. (See generally id.) While Title 38 does address 12 veterans’ affairs, it only governs the disposition of certain unclaimed deceased veterans’ personal 13 property. See, e.g., 38 U.S.C. § 8502. And it does not provide a cause of action in a civil case. 14 See 38 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Moreover, a quiet title action against private parties (as opposed to 15 the federal government) is, by its very nature, a matter of state law. See Liddell v. All Persons 16 Unknown, 2022 WL 2159261, slip op. at 2 (C.D. Cal. 2022) (collecting cases). It does not 17 present a federal question and, accordingly, does not confer subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Nor 18 would diversity jurisdiction apply here, as all parties are Washington citizens. (See Dkt. No. 5 at 19 6.) 20 While the Court gives pro se plaintiffs leave to amend, it need not do so if “it is 21 absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Cato 22 v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). And here, it is not conceivable that Plaintiff 23 could adequately plead violations of federal law and/or diversity jurisdiction. For this reason, 24 Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 5) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to 25 close this case. 26 // 1 DATED this 30th day of April 2024. A 2 3 4 John C. Coughenour 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26