Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Howell v. J.A. Riehl PEB

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

May 10, 2019

JANET HOWELL, Plaintiff,
v.
J.A. RIEHL PEB, et al. Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

          Jill A. Otake, United States District Judge.

         On February 11, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss the Complaint and Deny as Moot Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“F&R”). ECF No. 6. The F&R recommended that Plaintiffs[1] be granted until March 11, 2019 to file an amended pleading.

         This Court issued an Order Adopting, as Modified, Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation on February 28, 2019 (“Order”). ECF No. 7. The Order extended the deadline for Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint and an In Forma Pauperis Application or to pay the requisite filing fee until March 29, 2019. Plaintiffs failed to comply with this deadline.

         Instead, on April 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a document titled “REQUEST HEARING DATE AUGUST 2019.” ECF No. 9. Although the Court determined that Plaintiffs failed to advance a legitimate basis for the requested extension, it granted Plaintiffs until May 17, 2019 to file an amended complaint and another IFP Application or the requisite filing fee. The Court cautioned that failure to timely comply with the requirements set forth in the Order would result in the automatic dismissal of the action.

         DISCUSSION

         Pro se Plaintiff Janet Howell (“Plaintiff”) recently submitted three documents titled “Complaint.” ECF No. 13. One document is a pro se form complaint for a civil case[2] and the other two are documents created by Plaintiff that are nearly identical. As a preliminary matter, these filings do not comply with the F&R and Order, which required Plaintiff to file a single pleading titled “First Amended Complaint” that conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) and the Local Rules.[3] Neither has Plaintiff submitted an in forma pauperis application or paid the requisite filing fee. For these reasons alone, the action should be dismissed.

         In substance, the documents comprising Plaintiffs amended pleading fail to demonstrate that the Court has jurisdiction and do not set forth any viable claims.

         A. The Amended Pleading Fails to Establish a Basis for Jurisdiction

         Federal courts are presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction, and the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction is proper. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). If the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, an action must be dismissed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Here, Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists, even construing the amended pleading liberally, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), and she has failed to correct the deficiencies previously identified by the Court. Based on her allegations, it appears that Plaintiff wishes to invoke federal question jurisdiction.[4] In the form amended pleading, Plaintiff lists the following “federal statutes, federal treaties, and/or provisions of the United States Constitution that are at issue in this case:”

BRINGING SUIT AGAINST UNITED STATES OF U.S. NAVY, BUMED, PEB ND FEDERAL OFFICIALS, VIOLATION OF TITLE VII, VIOLATION OF 1964 ACT, VIOLATION OF REFERENCE 7702 AND 7703, DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, MILITARY DISABLE DISCRIMINATION, VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, CIVIL RIGHTS, ABUSED OF AUTHORITY NEGLIGENCE, VIOLATION OF CONSTITIONAL RIGHTS MIXED CASE

ECF No. 13 at 3, II.A. Plaintiffs statement of claim provides:

MULTIPLE TORT MIXED CASE DUE TO ALIENATION OF AFFECTION MEN AND WOMEN, NEGLIGENCE, MAL PRACTICES DOCTORS, NURSES, FABRICATED CRAZY DELUSIONAL WIFE BUT ACTUALLY CREATED BY CRAZY DELUSIONAL MISTRESSESOR BENEFICIAL FRIEND, USED THEIR PROESSION AS PRIVILEGED TO DISCIMINATE, WORK BEYOND THEIR SPECIALTY OR SCOPE OF WORK, FABRICATED, FORGED, I WAS A VICTIM OF A CRAZY DELUSIONAL BENEFICIAL FRIENDS WHO IDENTITY THEFT ME AND ACT AS A CRAZY WIFE IN GERMANY BUT ACTUALLY IT'S A CRAZY DELUSIONAL MISTRESS WHO ALIENATE AFFECTION FOR YEARS.

Id. at 4, III. In her other submissions entitled “Complaint, ” Plaintiff identifies Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as bases for jurisdiction. Plaintiffs mere reference to federal statutes, without any factual allegations to support violations of those statutes, is insufficient to establish jurisdiction founded upon a federal question.

         Plaintiff likewise fails to articulate facts establishing diversity jurisdiction, as she has not identified Defendants' citizenships. Indeed, the Court is unable to even ascertain the identities of all Defendants because there is a discrepancy between those identified in the form amended pleading and those identified in the other “Complaints.”[5] ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.