Moore v. Langlois et al
Filing
18
ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart 11 . This action is DISMISSED. Signed on 11/10/09 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (mkk)
<![CDATA[
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
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
