Unpublished Disposition, 878 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1989)

No. 88-15497.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Before WALLACE and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges, and DICKRAN M. TEVRIZIAN,^**  Jr., District Judge.

MEMORANDUM

Benson appeals from the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2201 action requesting a declaratory judgment ruling that (1) his claim to original United States citizenship is justified, (2) he is an original United States citizen, (3) the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution is not applicable to him, (4) the defendants denied his ninth amendment rights by imposing privilege over rights without statutory authority, (5) his arrest for driving without a valid driver's license and seizure of his property are a violation of the fourth and fifth amendments, (6) the sections of the California Motor Vehicle Code relating to the term "motor vehicle" are inapplicable to him, (7) he should be issued exempt identification plates for his vehicles, (8) neither the Department of Motor Vehicles nor Los Gatos Municipal Court may prosecute him in the future, and (9) the Department of Motor Vehicles pay all court costs and reimburse his "benefactor" for the amount of registration renewal fees, penalties, towing, and storage charges incurred from the impounding of his car. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Benson alleges jurisdiction pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. "The Declaratory Judgment Act permits a federal court 'in a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction ... [to] declare legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration.' " Levin Metals Corp. v. Parr-Richmond Terminal Co., 799 F.2d 1312, 1315 (9th Cir. 1986). "The Declaratory Judgment Act is not an independent source of federal jurisdiction." Id. " [T]he Declaratory Judgment Act applies only to cases of actual controversy." Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 623-24 (9th Cir.) (Watt), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 1031 (1981). "Thus, 'the question in each case is whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.' " Id., quoting Maryland v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273 (1941).

We affirm the district court's dismissal of Benson's first two claims requesting a judgment declaring his citizenship for lack of a controversy because "there are no facts which show either a controversy between [Benson] and the defendants or any reason or ground for declaring that [Benson] is ... a citizen." Florentine v. H.R. Landon, 231 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1955).

We likewise affirm the district court's dismissal of Benson's third claim for a declaration that the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution is inapplicable to him for failure to state a controversy.

To the extent that we have jurisdiction over the remaining claims, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Watt, 643 F.2d at 626 ("Plaintiffs cannot [] create a justiciable case or controversy simply by misreading statutes and claiming as injury fears born of their own error").

AFFIRMED.

Note: This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the Courts of this Circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.