Cole v. Elder Body of Tualatin Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witness et al, No. 3:2008cv01401 - Document 6 (D. Or. 2009)
Court Description: Opinion & Order: This case is Dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to comply with this court's order. Signed on 1/30/09 by Chief Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (gm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON WILMA LEAH COLE, CV.08-1401-PK OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, v. ELDER BODY ofTUALATIN KINGDOM HALL JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES et al. Defendants. HAGGERTY, Chief Judge: Plaintiff Wilma Cole, appearing pro se, filed this action against the Elder Body of Tualatin Kingdom Hall Jehovah's Witnesses, the Aloha Kingdom Hall, and individual members ofthose congregations. Cole's complaint appears to arise from her removal from the congregations named in the complaint. For the reasons set fOlih below, this action is dismissed with prejudice. Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER LEGAL STANDARD Federal Civil Procedure Rule l2(h)(3) provides that "[i]fthe court detennines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. }.;[usick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974) ("It has long been held that a judge can dismiss sua sponte for lack ofjurisdiction"). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil cases and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. ofAm., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). "[F]ederal comts liberally to construe the 'inartful pleading' of pro se litigants." Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,1260-1261 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). That is, comts hold pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Specifically, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice ofthe deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint's deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. See Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 623-624. BACKGROUND Cole filed her original complaint in this action on December 3, 2008. On Janumy 6, 2009, this COUlt dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In its ruling, the comt set fOlth the deficiencies in the complaint and granted Cole leave to amend within thhty days to cure those deficiencies. Cole timely filed her first amended complaint on January 16,2009. Cole's amended complaint, however, does not COlTect the deficiencies in her original complaint. The amended Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER complaint consists of more than thirty pages and is entirely incoherent. Like the original complaint, the amended complaint does not make any allegations regarding subject matter jurisdiction. It does not cite to any federal law or constitutional provision, nor does it set fOlih the defendants' states of citizenship. Finally, although the amended complaint states in several places that Cole seeks to be reinstated as a Jehovah's Witness, it does not request any other form of relief. DISCUSSION The court has a continuing duty to dismiss an action whenever it appears that the couli lacks jurisdiction. Billingsley v. Comm'r ofthe IR.S., 868 F.2d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, if the couli determines that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court must dismiss the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Federal subject matter jurisdiction must be based on either a claim involving the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, or on diversity of citizenship between the parties. 28 U.S.C. ยงยง 1331, 1332. Here, this cOUli does not have federal subject matter jurisdiction based on the facts alleged in Cole's first amended complaint. The complaint contains no cause of action arising under, or that contains any reference to, any federal statute or the U.S. Constitution, nor does it indicate Cole's or the defendants' state citizenship. Therefore, 1must dismiss the action. I also conclude that it is appropriate to dismiss this action with prejudice. Cole's failure to address the deficiencies as set out in my earlier order indicates that fUliher leave to amend would be futile. Moreover, a couli may dismiss a case for the plaintiffs failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a cOUli order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Agnew v. ]v!oody, 330 F.2d 868, 870-871 (9th Cir. 1964). The district cOUli, however, must weigh five factors to Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER determine whether to dismiss a case for failUre to complywith a court order, including: "(I) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives." Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted). Here, Cole's lack of any effort to comply with the court's earlier order is ground for dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Agnew, 330 F.2d at 870; Nevijel v. North Coast Lift Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). "The public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal." Yow'ish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal citation omitted). Moreover, review of Cole's incomprehensible pleadings takes valuable time away from the other matters on this court's docket. See Ferdick, 963 F.2d at 1261. In addition, Cole's failure to comply with the court's earlier order demonstrates that less drastic alternatives to dismissal will prove ineffective. See Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 674 ("Though there are a wide variety of sanctions short of dismissal available, the district comi need not exhaust them all before finally dismissing a case.") CONCLUSION This case is dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to comply with this comi's order. Dated this 30th day O~009. Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
