Stuart Robinson v. Clise Properties Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 28, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00397
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 BARBARA STUART ROBINSON, CASE NO. C24-0397-JCC 10 11 Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER v. 12 CLISE PROPERTIES INC, 13 Defendants. 14 15 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 16 Coughenour, United States District Judge: 17 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The Court must dismiss a complaint if it 18 appears that it has no jurisdiction to proceed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A review of Plaintiff’s 19 complaint (Dkt. No. 5) reveals inadequate allegations to support this Court’s jurisdiction. 20 First, Plaintiff must identify the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts 21 generally possess two types of subject matter jurisdiction—federal question jurisdiction and 22 diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. In her complaint, Plaintiff indicates “federal question” as the 23 basis for jurisdiction. (Id. at 1.)1 This exists when a plaintiff’s claim arises “under the 24 Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But the closest Plaintiff 25

26 1 Plaintiff further cites to 28 U.S.C. 1367, the supplemental jurisdiction statute. (Id.) 1 comes to citing any federal law is her reference to “due process” and “civil rights” violations. 2 (Dkt. No. 5 at 3.) This, alone, is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction. Instead, 3 Plaintiff must list the specific federal statutes, federal treaties, and/or provisions of the United 4 States Constitution that are at issue in this case. 5 Second, assuming Plaintiff’s intent is to allege violations of the Constitution, her 6 complaint is insufficiently pled. “A threshold requirement of any constitutional claim is the 7 presence of state action.” Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 877 F.3d 833, 837 (9th Cir. 2017) 8 (quotations and citation omitted). And here, the sole named defendant in this case, Clise 9 Properties, Inc., is a private (i.e., non-governmental) actor. (Id. at 1.) Thus, to the extent Plaintiff 10 seeks to allege constitutional violations by Clise Properties, her complaint is deficient. 11 Based on the above, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause why this Court has subject 12 matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff may do so by filing an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of 13 the issuance of this order. If no amendment is made, the Court will dismiss the instant complaint 14 (Dkt. No. 5) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If, in the amended complaint, Plaintiff fails to 15 state sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory, the complaint will also be dismissed for 16 failure to state a claim. 17 The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff. 18 DATED this 28th day of March 2024. 19 Ravi Subramanian 20 Clerk of Court 21 s/Kathleen Albert 22 Deputy Clerk 23

24 25 26