Opinion
Case No.: 2:20-cv-01042-GMN-NJK
06-19-2020
AIMEE O'NEIL, Plaintiff(s), v. STATE OF COLORADO, Defendant(s).
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff has submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket Nos. 1, 1-1. District courts have the authority to dismiss cases sua sponte without notice when the plaintiff "cannot possibly win relief." Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988).
When a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, courts screen the complaint to ensure that the plaintiff has stated a claim for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Given the Court's authority to dismiss the complaint pursuant to the authority below, however, the Court need not address whether Plaintiff qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis before dismissing her case. --------
The Court has a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction. United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966-67 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only the power authorized by the Constitution and statute. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). Federal courts are "presumed to lack jurisdiction . . . unless the contrary affirmatively appears." Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). "The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the case is properly in federal court." McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff's allegations are fuzzy—bordering on incomprehensible. She alleges that she was conducting "official federal government business"—by "getting fingerprinted at [a Las Vegas] Office Depot for her United States Census job"— and that the State of Colorado had "actors follow her to intimidate and interfere with official federal business." Docket No. 1-1 at 7-8. However, she later alleges that Defendant filed a "frivolous appeal" from a civil case in this District and "interfered with [her] right to appeal a criminal case . . . ." Id. at 10-11. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant "interfered with [her] [] right to equal protection and due process in the Colorado Judicial System [] imposing a felony on [her] record by deliberate judicial discrimination." Id. at 19. Plaintiff names the "State of Colorado" as a defendant and appears to also name the Attorney General of Colorado as a defendant, see id. at 2; however, because Plaintiff refers only to the State of Colorado in her allegations, the Court construes her complaint to name, as a defendant, only the State of Colorado. Plaintiff seeks "an injunctive order of permanent restraintment [sic]," $5,000,000 in punitive damages, and $5,000,000 in compensatory damages. Id. at 23-24.
More than one aspect of Plaintiff's allegations likely bars her complaint from surviving the screening process. However, one aspect does without question: Section 1983 permits suits only against "persons," see Paeste v. Gov't of Guam, 798 F.3d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015), and states are not "persons" under Section 1983, Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 69 (1997). Thus, because Plaintiff's complaint is based only on Section 1983, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED and that this case be closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 19, 2020
/s/_________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).