Brown v. Olsen
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se complaint filed by Curtis Brown against Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, which failed to state a claim, establish jurisdiction, or satisfy venue requirements. The court dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint by March 25, 2020, and deferred ruling on the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Complaint dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue, with leave to amend.“The complaint is DISMISSED. If Brown believes he can correct the defects order has identified, he must file an amended complaint. He must do this no later than March 25, 2020, or the IFP motion will be denied as moot and this action will be dismissed without leave to amend.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the complaint failed to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(1) regarding jurisdiction and failed to establish venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Dismissing with leave to amend is the standard procedural remedy for a pro se plaintiff's initial complaint that is facially deficient in these fundamental ways, provided the defects are curable. The court also correctly noted that the complaint would fail under the plausibility standard of Iqbal even if jurisdiction and venue were established. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the presumption against federal jurisdiction, the requirement for proper venue, and the plausibility pleading standard. The court appropriately granted leave to amend given the pro se nature of the plaintiff and the facial nature of the defects (missing jurisdictional allegations and venue facts). The court correctly deferred the IFP ruling until after the opportunity to amend, which is efficient and standard practice.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CURTIS BROWN Case No.: 20cv393-LAB (MSB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING 13 v. COMPLAINT 14 MARY-KATE OLSEN and ASHLEY OLSEN, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Curtis Brown, pro se, filed a short complaint along with a motion to 19 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The Court need not rule on the IFP motion at 20 this time because it is clear the complaint must be dismissed. 21 The complaint identifies Brown as an “unstable” homeless person who lives 22 in Chicago. It accuses Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, actresses who appeared in 23 the television show Full House, of harassing him, says he wants nothing to do with 24 them, and asks for “retribution.” The complaint also says “(refer to the complaint),” 25 apparently asking the Court to look at a different document, which Brown did not 26 file. 27 The complaint does not include the “short and plain statement of the grounds 28 for the court’s jurisdiction” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) requires. Nor does it invoke the 1 ||Court’s jurisdiction in any other way. It must be dismissed for that reason. See 2 || Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (federal 3 ||courts’ jurisdiction is presumed to be lacking, until the party asserting jurisdiction 4 ||demonstrates otherwise). Furthermore, it does not allege that either Defendant 5 || lives in this District, or that anything giving rise to Brown’s claims occurred here, or 6 || that venue is proper in this District for any other reason. The complaint is dismissed 7 that reason as well. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9" Cir. 1986) 8 || (court may raise improper venue sua sponte, as long as it has not been waived). 9 Even if the complaint were not being dismissed for lack of subject matter 10 ||jurisdiction and improper venue, it does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) or 11 |/(3). And even if Brown were granted leave to proceed IFP, the complaint would not 12 ||survive the mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). It does not allege 13 ||enough factual matter that, if accepted as true, would state a claim to relief that is 14 || plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 15 The complaint is DISMISSED. If Brown believes he can correct the defects 16 order has identified, he must file an amended complaint. He must do this no 17 ||later than March 25, 2020, or the IFP motion will be denied as moot and this action 18 || will be dismissed without leave to amend. Brown must also comply with Civil Local 19 ||Rules 5.1 and 83.11(b). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: March 4, 2020 22 A / AG, WY 23 Honorable Larry Alan Burns Chief United States District Judge 25 26 27 28