Shepard v. Rynning

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 26, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01331
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 DAVID JOSHUA SHEPARD, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01331-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT v. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 13 NATHAN RYNNING and US BANK 14 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 15 Defendants. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On September 20, 2022, Plaintiff 18 David J. Shepard filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 1) with a proposed 19 complaint (Dkt. No. 1-1) against Defendants U.S. Bank National Association and Nathan 20 Rynning (U.S. Bank branch manager for the Rainier Valley branch). Plaintiff Shepard is bringing 21 this case without an attorney (in other words, pro se). See Dkt. No. 1-1. Having reviewed 22 Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court DISMISSES it without prejudice. 23 24 1 The Court has authority to grant in forma pauperis status but is subject to the 2 requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which requires dismissal of in forma pauperis complaints that 3 fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see also 4 Messaad v. Cnty. of Washoe, 710 F. App’x 294, 295 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203

5 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000)) (en banc) (“§ 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 6 complaints”). 7 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning that they can only hear certain 8 types of cases. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019) (citation 9 omitted), rehearing denied, 140 S. Ct. 17. The typical bases for federal jurisdiction are 10 established where (1) the complaint presents a federal question “arising under the Constitution, 11 laws, or treaties of the United States” or (2) where the parties are diverse (e.g., residents of 12 different states) and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (“diversity question”). See 28 13 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. 14 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rynning refused to correct a bank error causing loss of

15 $7,200 (inclusive of interest) that “he said he could correct and that another branch manager said 16 they could correct, normally, except for note left in file.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 4. Plaintiff also alleges 17 suffering emotional distress, being under “the threat of physical violence,” and being denied 18 rights “as a customer of US Bank.” Id. 19 Plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging negligence, which arises from state law. See Dkt. 20 No. 1-1 at 1, 4. Though Plaintiff used a complaint form that requires proof of diversity 21 jurisdiction, the facts plead do not support a claim based on diversity of citizenship. First, one of 22 the defendants is alleged to have the same state citizenship as Plaintiff. See id. at 1–2. Second, 23 the amount in controversy is far below the $75,000 threshold required for diversity jurisdiction;

24 Plaintiff claims to have suffered a loss of approximately $7,200 and also seeks punitive damages 1 “for emotional pain/suffering, loss of use of account to lower debt, loss of use in general.” Id. at 2 4. 3 This Court liberally construes pleadings filed by pro se litigants and holds them “to less 4 stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,

5 94 (2007) (per curiam) (citations omitted). But a court “should not supply essential elements of 6 the [pro se] claim that were not initially pled.” E.g., Henderson v. Anderson, No. 19-789, 2019 7 WL 3996859, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 23, 2019) (citation omitted). The Court is also mindful 8 that “[a] district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend unless ‘it is 9 absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.’ ” 10 Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 11 1202, 1203–04 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 995). 12 As the complaint neither raises a federal question nor a diversity question, the Court does 13 not have jurisdiction over this case. Therefore, Plaintiff Shepard’s claims are dismissed without 14 prejudice. Plaintiff shall have one more opportunity to file an amended complaint within thirty

15 (30) days of this Order (i.e., by November 25, 2022). 16 Dated this 26th day of October 2022. 17 A 18 Tana Lin United States District Judge 19

20 21 22 23 24