Ray E. Bennett Jr v. Stephanie Smith, No. 5:2008cv01035 - Document 7 (C.D. Cal. 2008)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. (See Order for details) (db)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EASTERN DIVISION 7 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 11 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) RAY E. BENNETT, STEPHANIE SMITH, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 Case No. EDCV 08-1035-VAP (MLG) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 14 15 16 Plaintiff Ray Bennett filed this pro se complaint pursuant to 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 18 § 12101 ( ADA ) on August 4, 2008. He paid the full filing fee of 19 $350.00. The complaint names as defendants Stephanie Smith and 20 Anthony 21 complaint makes bizarre allegations against the Smiths, stating that 22 they are evil people, who on July 20, 2008, stared him down and did 23 not control their barking dog. 24 almost hit him with her car. Plaintiff claims he went to the Smiths 25 home with a gun and police were called. He wants the Smiths charged 26 with 27 $20,000,000.00. 28 // Smith, criminal who are offenses apparently and neighbors of Plaintiff. The In addition he claims that Stephanie demands damages in the amount of 1 On August 18, 2008, Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman issued an 2 order directing Plaintiff to show cause, on or before September 5, 3 2008, why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject 4 matter jurisdiction. It was sent to Plaintiff s last known address. 5 Plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause in the time 6 allowed. 7 A district court is obliged to sua sponte raise questions of 8 its subject matter jurisdiction. Williams v. United Airlines, Inc., 9 500 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir. 2007). Part of Plaintiff s complaint 10 is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with an allegation of a Fourth 11 Amendment violation. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must 12 allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws 13 of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was 14 committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. 15 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)(emphasis added). There is no showing 16 or allegation that these defendants are clothed with the authority 17 of state law. Section 1983 provides no jurisdiction for this Court 18 to review Plaintiff s civil rights claim. 19 The ADA prohibits discrimination by a covered entity against a 20 qualified individual with a disability in employment matters, 42 21 U.S.C. § 12112, or with respect to programs and benefits provided by 22 a public entity, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 23 he is a qualified individual under the act, or that these defendants 24 are a covered or public entity within the meaning of the Act. Without 25 such a showing, there is no subject matter jurisdiction under the 26 ADA. 27 // 28 // 2 Plaintiff has not alleged that 1 The Court finds that Plaintiff s allegations arising from the 2 dispute with his neighbors does not vest the Court with subject 3 matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1331 or 28 U.S.C § 1332. The 4 Court can discern no other conceivable basis for the exercise of 5 subject matter jurisdiction over these claims. It is therefore 6 ordered that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 7 8 Dated: September 11, 2008 9 10 11 ________________________________ Virginia A. Phillips United States District Judge 12 13 14 Presented By: 15 16 17 Marc L. Goldman United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
