federal 3 ||courts’ jurisdiction is presumed to be lacking, until the party asserting jurisdiction 4 ||demonstrates otherwise
How later courts described this case
- federal 3 ||courts’ jurisdiction is presumed to be lacking, until the party asserting jurisdiction 4 ||demonstrates otherwise
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 CURTIS BROWN Case No.: 20cv393-LAB (MSB)
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING
13 v. COMPLAINT
14 MARY-KATE OLSEN and
ASHLEY OLSEN,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18 Plaintiff Curtis Brown, pro se, filed a short complaint along with a motion to
19 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The Court need not rule on the IFP motion at
20 this time because it is clear the complaint must be dismissed.
21 The complaint identifies Brown as an “unstable” homeless person who lives
22 in Chicago. It accuses Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, actresses who appeared in
23 the television show Full House, of harassing him, says he wants nothing to do with
24 them, and asks for “retribution.” The complaint also says “(refer to the complaint),”
25 apparently asking the Court to look at a different document, which Brown did not
26 file.
27 The complaint does not include the “short and plain statement of the grounds
28 for the court’s jurisdiction” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) requires. Nor does it invoke the
1 ||Court’s jurisdiction in any other way. It must be dismissed for that reason. See
2 || Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (federal
3 ||courts’ jurisdiction is presumed to be lacking, until the party asserting jurisdiction
4 ||demonstrates otherwise). Furthermore, it does not allege that either Defendant
5 || lives in this District, or that anything giving rise to Brown’s claims occurred here, or
6 || that venue is proper in this District for any other reason. The complaint is dismissed
7 that reason as well. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9" Cir. 1986)
8 || (court may raise improper venue sua sponte, as long as it has not been waived).
9 Even if the complaint were not being dismissed for lack of subject matter
10 ||jurisdiction and improper venue, it does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) or
11 |/(3). And even if Brown were granted leave to proceed IFP, the complaint would not
12 ||survive the mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). It does not allege
13 ||enough factual matter that, if accepted as true, would state a claim to relief that is
14 || plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
15 The complaint is DISMISSED. If Brown believes he can correct the defects
16 order has identified, he must file an amended complaint. He must do this no
17 ||later than March 25, 2020, or the IFP motion will be denied as moot and this action
18 || will be dismissed without leave to amend. Brown must also comply with Civil Local
19 ||Rules 5.1 and 83.11(b).
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21 ||Dated: March 4, 2020
22 A / AG, WY
23 Honorable Larry Alan Burns
Chief United States District Judge
25
26
27
28