Moore v. Langlois et al - Document 18

FIlEW09 ~ 10 15:47USoc~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T OF O R E G O N C. EDWARD MOORE, Plaintiff, C i v i l No. 0 9 - 7 9 3 - S T ORDER v. G E O R G E A N D C A R O L LANGLOIS, A l O T I L L A M O O K A P A R T M E N T S , INC.; a n d C I T Y OF T I L L A M O O K , Defendants. H A G G E R T Y , D i s t r i c t Judge: Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation [11] recommending t h a t t h i s case b e d i s m i s s e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e for l a c k o f s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n a n d f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a claim. O b j e c t i o n s t o p o r t i o n s o f t h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n w e r e filed b y p l a i n t i f f . T h e m a t t e r w a s t h e n r e f e r r e d t o t h i s c o u r t for r e v i e w . W h e n a p a r t y objects t o any p o r t i o n o f t h e Magistrate Judge's F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n , t h e d i s t r i c t court m u s t m a k e a d e n o v o d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e Magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I)(B); McDonnell D o u g l a s Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach .· Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 ( 9 t h Cir. 1981). P l a i n t i f f filed objections i n a timely manner. T h e court h a s given the file o f this case a de novo review, carefully reviewing the Findings a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n , p l a i n t i f f s o b j e c t i o n s , a n d t h e R e c o r d o f t h e case. 1 --ORDER  BACKGROUND M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e S t e w a r t p r o v i d e d a t h o r o u g h analysis o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s p r e s e n t e d i n p l a i n t i f f s A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t as w e l l as h i s original C o m p l a i n t . T h e factual b a c k g r o u n d s u p p l e m e n t e d b y p l a i n t i f f s a s s e r t i o n s m a d e i n h i s O b j e c t i o n s - n e e d b e o n l y s u m m a r i z e d here. P l a i n t i f f alleges t h a t h e leased a n a p a r t m e n t i n T i l l a m o o k , Oregon, from c o - d e f e n d a n t s G e o r g e a n d C a r o l L a n g l o i s i n May, 2 0 0 7 . T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p l a i n t i f f a n d t h e s e c o - d e f e n d a n t s deteriorated a f t e r confrontations i n v o l v i n g p l a i n t i f f s alleged p a r k i n g violations a n d w a t e r d a m a g e i n t h e apartment. T h e Magistrate J u d g e scrutinized p l a i n t i f f s A m e n d e d Complaint, identifying p l a i n t i f f s c l a i m s u n d e r t h e F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n f o r "takings" (disputing t h e calculation o f t h e security d e p o s i t required b y co-defendants and challenging a r e n t i n c r e a s e ) . F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n a t 2 , c i t i n g A m . C o m p . , p p . 1-2. T h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n also a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f "alleges a v i o l a t i o n o f his liberty interest a n d a denial o f e q u a l protection b e c a u s e tenants o f t h e T i l l a m o o k A p a r t m e n t s a r e n o t a l l o w e d to p a r k t h e i r v e h i c l e s d u r i n g t h e d a y t i m e o n t h e b l o c k o f P a c i f i c S t r e e t o n w h i c h t h e a p a r t m e n t i s located." F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n a t 3, c i t i n g A m . C o m p . , p p . 3-4. T h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n n o t e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s h e s i g n e d h i s l e a s e u n d e r duress, a n d t h a t p l a i n t i f f r e f e r r e d t o p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e U n i f o r m C o m m e r c i a l C o d e a n d p o r t i o n s o f t h e F i r s t , N i n t h a n d T e n t h A m e n d m e n t s . F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n a t 4, c i t i n g Am. C o m p . , pp. 3-5. ANALYSIS T h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n evaluated w h e t h e r this c o u r t i s e m p o w e r e d t o h e a r p l a i n t i f f s claims. T h e p r o p e r standards f o r t h i s evaluation w e r e considered, and need n o t b e 2 -- O R D E R  reviewed again. Findings and Recommendation at 4-6. T h e Magistrate Judge concluded that a n " e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e p l e a d i n g s r e v e a l t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n i s l a c k i n g f o r f a i l u r e to a l l e g e a c o g n i z a b l e federal claim." Findings and Recommendation at 6. After a thorough a n d searching scrutiny o f p l a i n t i f f s c l a i m s , t h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n d e t e n n i n e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f " f a i l s to s t a t e a n y c l a i m b a s e d o n a federal q u e s t i o n f o r w h i c h r e l i e f m a y b e g r a n t e d " a n d t h a t " t h i s c a s e s h o u l d b e dismissed for lack o f subject matter jurisdiction." Findings and Recommendation at 14. P l a i n t i f f s Objections c o n t e n d t h a t t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e i g n o r e d plaintiff's allegations t h a t h e signed h i s l e a s e u n d e r duress, e r r e d i n c o r r e c t l y r e c i t i n g plaintiff's allegations r e g a r d i n g s t a t e m e n t s m a d e b y G e o r g e Langois, e r r e d i n h e r a n a l y s i s o f p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s r e g a r d i n g p a r k i n g issues, and m a d e n u m e r o u s s p e c i f i c e r r o r s t h r o u g h o u t t h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n . A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s e o b j e c t i o n s a n d s c r u t i n i z i n g t h e r e c o r d , t h i s c o u r t finds t h a t t h e r e a s o n i n g o f t h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n is s o u n d a n d w a r r a n t s a d o p t i o n . A c c e p t i n g t h e undisputed facts, and viewing the disputed facts in a light favorable to plaintiff, i t is clear that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. P l a i n t i f f s Objections fail to refute this p r o p e r conclusion. V i e w i n g p l a i n t i f f s a r g u m e n t s liberally, h e s u p p o r t s federal j u r i s d i c t i o n b y a s s e r t i n g t h a t his D u e Process Clause violation claim "is grounded in t h e Fact that the City's favoritism to property owners and Shopkeepers is a direct reversal o f h o w Resident Parking Is handled i n all locales Moore is personally familiar with." Objections at 4. P l a i n t i f f s comparisons to other m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ' p a r k i n g p o l i c i e s p r o v i d e n o b a s i s f o r a d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m o r f o r federal jurisdiction. Similarly, plaintiff's reiteration that h e believes that t h e parking policy at issue is "a sort o f second h a n d give-away to property owners" fails to create a valid Equal Protection claim 3 -- ORDER  and does not establish federal jurisdiction. Objections at 4-5. P l a i n t i f f s invocation o f the Ninth A m e n d m e n t a l s o fails t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h i s c o u r t m u s t , o r c a n , e x e r c i s e f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . A s s u m i n g , w i t h o u t deciding, that p l a i n t i f f h a s o f f e r e d a c c u r a t e a m e n d m e n t s o r p r o p e r c o r r e c t i o n s to t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e ' s s t u d i o u s e f f o r t to l i b e r a l l y i n t e r p r e t p l a i n t i f f s p l e a d i n g s a n d i d e n t i f y h i s claims, n o n e o f t h e alleged e r r o r s a n d n o n e o f t h e p r o p o s e d c o r r e c t i o n s c a n r e f u t e t h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n ' s s o u n d c o n c l u s i o n - t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t f a i l s to s t a t e a n y c l a i m b a s e d o n a federal q u e s t i o n f o r w h i c h r e l i e f m a y b e g r a n t e d , a n d t h a t t h i s c a s e m u s t b e d i s m i s s e d for l a c k o f s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . M o r e o v e r , t h e F i n d i n g s a n d Recommendation properly concluded that this dismissal should b e without further leave to amend. P l a i n t i f f s e f f o r t s i n h i s i n i t i a l C o m p l a i n t a n d i n h i s A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e p r o p e r f o r u m f o r t h e c h a l l e n g e s h e r a i s e s is a s t a t e c o u r t . CONCLUSION F o r t h e reasons provided herein, the Findings a n d Recommendation [11] is ADOPTED. P l a i n t i f f fails t o a l l e g e a v i a b l e c l a i m f o r v i o l a t i o n o f a n y c o n s t i t u t i o n a l right. T h i s c o u r t h a s n o subject matter jurisdiction based o n a federal question. T h i s court expresses no opinion r e g a r d i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f plaintiff's claims b e y o n d t h e e v i d e n t conclusion t h a t n o n e o f t h o s e claims provides a basis for this court's exercise o f jurisdiction. TIris action i s dismissed. This d i s m i s s a l is o r d e r e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e , a n d w i t h o u t f u r t h e r l e a v e t o a m e n d . IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this If) day o f November, 2009. ~;(~~Allcer L. Haggerty U n i t e d States District J u d g e 4 -- ORDER