Opinion
Civ. No. 1:19-cv-01501-CL
03-11-2020
MARY GUSTAFSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MEDFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT; CITY OF MEDFORD, ATTORNEYS OFFICE; OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, KATE BROWN, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff's complaint seeks damages in the amount of $25,000 based on the allegation that the City of Medford has not removed blackberry bushes from her real property in Medford, Oregon. On December 23, 2019, the Oregon Department of Justice and the Office of the Governor (collectively, "State Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Defendants City of Medford, Public Works Department, City Attorney's Office, and Madison Simmons (collectively, "City Defendants") did not join the motion or file their own motions to dismiss, and instead filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. On January 30, 2020, this Court issued a Report and Recommendation (#12) recommending that the State Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (#11) be granted for failure to state a claim against the State Defendants. The issue of subject matter jurisdiction was not raised in the motion to dismiss. Having concerns over subject matter jurisdiction, this Court ordered the remaining parties to submit simultaneous briefing regarding the basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Pursuant to the Court's Order to Show Cause (#14), the City Defendants submitted a memorandum of law (#16) in favor of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Based on the City Defendants' memorandum, this Court finds that Plaintiff failed to allege grounds to support subject matter jurisdiction and recommends that this case be dismissed against all defendants.
DISCUSSION
If a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a case, it is obligated to dismiss the case. Rainero v. Archon Corp., 844 F.3d 832, 841 (9th Cir. 2016). Most state courts are courts of general jurisdiction, whereas federal courts have limited jurisdiction. In order to bring an action in federal court, a plaintiff must find a constitutional or congressional grant of subject matter jurisdiction to allow the federal court to hear the case. See U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 2.
The two primary sources of subject matter jurisdiction for federal courts are diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally permits individuals to bring claims in federal court where the claim exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For example, if a citizen of California sues a citizen of Oregon for more than $75,000, a federal court would have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear that case. Under federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff may bring a claim in federal court if it arises under federal law, regardless of the value of the claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal question jurisdiction requires that the federal element appear on the face of a well-plead complaint, is a substantial component of the plaintiff's claim, and is of significant federal interest. Federal question jurisdiction is frequently derived from federal statutes granting a cause of action to parties who have suffered a particular injury.
Here, the complaint fails to articulate grounds for establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction does not exist because Plaintiff seeks recovery of less than $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal question jurisdiction also does not exist because Plaintiff has not identified a claim arising under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Smallwood v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 660 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2011) (federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face a plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint).
Plaintiff's complaint does not support federal question jurisdiction because all of Plaintiff's claims arise out of state or municipal law. First, Plaintiff alleges jurisdiction exists based on "violation of safety codes." Compl. at 4 (#1). The complaint does not define the term "safety codes," so it is unclear which codes are at issue. However, codes are generally creatures of state or municipal law. See Medford Municipal Code § 7.410 (requiring property owners to maintain and abate uncontrolled weeds and brush). Therefore, violation of such a code does not create a claim arising under federal law and cannot establish federal question jurisdiction.
Second, the complaint alleges jurisdiction based on "violation of elderly abuse - civil rights." Compl. at 4 (#1). A generous reading of this allegation could be a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which creates a private right of action against persons acting under color of state law. Boldt v. Myers, 2007 WL2463245, *7 (D. Or. Aug. 28, 2007). However, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not a jurisdictional statute. It fashions a remedy for civil rights violations, but a person asserting a claim thereunder must look to other federal authority to obtain jurisdiction. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 534 (1974) (a federal cause of action created by Section 1983 does not, by itself, confer jurisdiction upon district courts to adjudicate claims); See, e.g., Concerned Tenants Assoc. v. Pierce, 685 F. Supp. 316 (D.C. Conn. 1988) (tenants of a low-income housing project brought a Section 1983 claim when owner failed to preserve and maintain units in violation of a federal statute). Claims for elder abuse generally arise under state law. See ORS 124.110 et seq. (Civil Action for Abuse of Vulnerable Person). The Court is unaware of a federal statute that grants a private right of action for elder abuse.
Third, Plaintiff may be claiming City Defendants ran afoul of alleged maintenance obligations under a "utility easement" on Plaintiff's property. See Compl. at 2, 5 (#1). Like Plaintiff's other claims, the interpretation of an easement is a matter of state law. See Vacation Village, Inc. v. Clark County, Nev., 497 F.3d 902, 917 (9th Cir. 2007) ("The interpretation of easements is a matter of state law."); see, e.g., Kell v. Oppenlander, 154 Ore. App. 422, 426 (Or. 1998) (interpreting the language of an easement like that of a contract under state law). The Court is unaware of any federal statute or constitutional right implicated by Plaintiff's easement claim.
For these reasons, Plaintiff's complaint does not support diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction.
RECOMMENDATION
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case. The complaint should be DISMISSED against all defendants.
This Report and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due no later than fourteen (14) days after the date this recommendation is filed. If objections are filed, any response is due within fourteen (14) days after the date the objections are filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6. Parties are advised that the failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
DATED this 11 day of March, 2020.
/s/_________
MARK D. CLARKE
United States Magistrate Judge