Thompson v. Reed

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

RONALD RAY THOMPSON; Civ. No. 6:22-cv-00600-AA

RACHEL ANN THOMPSON,

Plaintiffs, OPINION & ORDER

v.

ROBERT KIM REED; KAREN R.

REED,

Defendants.

_______________________________________

AIKEN, District Judge.

This case comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the

Amended Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction, ECF No. 31. For the reasons set forth

below, the Motion is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED. All other pending

motions are DENIED as moot.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power

authorized by the Constitution and by statute. Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256

(2013). As such, a court is to presume “that a cause lies outside this limited

jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the contrary rests on the party asserting

jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)

(internal citations omitted). A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of “subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court’s

power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived.” United States v. Cotton, 535

U.S. 625, 630 (2002). An objection that a particular court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction may be raised by any party, or by the court on its own initiative, at any

time. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006). The court must dismiss any

case over which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also

Pistor v. Garcia, 791 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting that when a court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction, meaning it lacks the statutory or constitutional power to

adjudicate a case, the court must dismiss the complaint, even sua sponte if necessary).

A Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be

either “facial” or “factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th

Cir. 2004). A facial attack on subject matter jurisdiction is based on the assertion

that the allegations contained in the complaint are insufficient to invoke federal

jurisdiction. Id. “A jurisdictional challenge is factual where ‘the challenger disputes

the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal

jurisdiction.’” Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 n.6 (9th Cir. 2013) ( quoting Safe

Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039). When a defendant factually challenges the

plaintiff’s assertion of jurisdiction, a court does not presume the truthfulness of the

plaintiff’s allegations and may consider evidence extrinsic to the complaint. See

Terenkian v. Republic of Iraq, 694 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012). A factual

challenge “can attack the substance of a complaint’s jurisdictional allegations despite

their formal sufficiency.” Dreier v. United States, 106 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 1996)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

The Amended Complaint, ECF No. 30, alleges that Plaintiffs and Defendants

are citizens of Oregon. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1-3. The dispute between the parties in this

case centers on “the nature and scope of a long established easement (50 years),”

which was part of a warranty deed. Id. at ¶¶ 6-8. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants

“have undertaken actions that have caused considerable harm to the Plaintiffs

without any attempts to communicate and confer on the issues.” Id. at ¶ 12.

Plaintiffs allege that their federal constitutional rights have been violated by

Defendants’ actions. Id. at ¶ 11. Plaintiffs allege that this includes infringement of

their rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Am. Compl.

4. The specific “actions” allegedly taken by Defendants are not described in the

Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs seek a declaration that their “easement and lawful access” be

returned “to its original status as contemplated by Plaintiff Ronald Ray Thompson’s

uncle (Grantor) and father (Grantee),” and that the property rights of Plaintiffs be

restored. Am. Comp. 5.

Defendants bring both facial and factual challenges to the existence of federal

subject matter jurisdiction.

I. Facial Challenge

Defendants assert that, on its face, the Amended Complaint does not establish

this Court’s jurisdiction. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims

that invoke either federal question or diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Federal

question jurisdiction arises when the asserted claims arise under the United States

Constitution or a federal law or treaty. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The presence or

absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint

rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is

presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v.

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

“A claim invoking federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . . . may be

dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction if it is not colorable, i.e., it is

‘immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction’ or is ‘wholly

insubstantial and frivolous.’” Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 513 n.10 (quoting Bell v. Hood,

327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946)). Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction arises when the

parties are citizens of different states and the amount of damages in controversy

exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

Here, the Amended Complaint plainly alleges that all Plaintiffs and

Defendants are citizens of Oregon. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1-3. This fails the requirement of

complete diversity. See Demarest v. HSBC Bank USA, 920 F.3d 1223, 1226 (9th Cir.

2019) (explaining that diversity jurisdiction requires “complete diversity of

citizenship, meaning that the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the

citizenship of each defendant.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Turning to the matter of federal question jurisdiction, “Congress has given the

lower federal courts jurisdiction to hear, originally or by removal from a state court,

only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law

creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on

resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v.

Const. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). Here, the essence

of Plaintiffs’ claim is the allegation that Defendants have violated the terms of an

easement. The interpretation of an easement is a question of state law. See Smith

v. Tumalo Irrigation Dist., Case No. 6:20-cv-00345-MK, 2022 WL 3357678, at *4-5 (D.

Or. May 2, 2022) (applying Oregon state law to determine the scope of an easement).

The claim does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States

as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but instead arises under the laws of Oregon.1

Plaintiffs seek to evade this issue by including conclusory allegations that

Defendants’ undescribed “actions” constitute a violation of a host of federal

constitutional rights. As the Ninth Circuit has observed, however, a federal court’s

“limited jurisdiction cannot be invoked so simplistically.” Yokeno v. Mafnas, 973 F.2d

803, 807 (9th Cir. 1992). A plaintiff’s “bare citation to the Constitution and vague

and conclusory allegations fail to establish the requisite subject matter jurisdiction,”

1 Indeed, Defendants have presented evidence in support of their factual attack on subject matter

jurisdiction that the issue of this easement has been and continues to be litigated in Oregon state

court.

under the well-pleaded complaint rule. Denton v. Agents of the State of Oregon, No.

3:12-CV-00022-HZ, 2012 WL 6617389, at *2 (D. Or. 2012). Here, Plaintiffs offer only

vague references to “actions” taken by their neighboring landowners which Plaintiffs

allege, in a conclusory fashion, violate their constitutional rights. This falls far short

of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.

Nor does Plaintiff’s invocation of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §

2201, suffice to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The “Declaratory

Judgment Act does not by itself confer federal subject-matter jurisdiction,” and

plaintiffs are “required to plead an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.”

Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Liberatore, 408 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 2005). Nor does

Plaintiffs’ reference to the venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, suffice to confer

jurisdiction. See Converse v. Udall, 399 F.2d 616, 618 (9th Cir. 1968) (“The

Declaratory Judgment Act does not confer jurisdiction, nor does § 1391, which deals

with venue.” (internal citations omitted)). As discussed above, Plaintiffs have failed

to establish an independent basis for jurisdiction.

The Court concludes that the Amended Complaint fails to establish federal

subject matter jurisdiction on its face.

II. Factual Challenge

Defendants also offer a factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction in this

matter. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ federal lawsuit amounts to a de facto

appeal of unfavorable rulings by Oregon state courts concerning the disputed

easement and that it therefore runs afoul of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.2

Pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts lack jurisdiction to

hear cases that amount to collateral attacks on state court judgments. The basic

premise of the doctrine is that “a federal district court does not have subject matter

jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from the final judgment of a state court.” Noel v.

Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). Instead, the United States Supreme Court

is the only federal court with jurisdiction to hear appeals from state courts. Id.

The scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine includes de facto appeals from a

state court decision and “any issues raised in the suit that is ‘inextricably intertwined’

with an issue resolved by the state court in its judicial decision.” Noel, 341 F.3d at

1158. A claim is inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment if the federal

claim can succeed only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues

before it, or if the relief requested in the federal action would effectively reverse the

state court decision or void its ruling. Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252

F.3d 1026, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).

“Rooker-Feldman bars a suit from going forward if: (a) the plaintiff in the

federal suit lost in the state court proceeding; (b) the state court determination is at

the core of the federal lawsuit; (c) the federal lawsuit seeks review and rejection of

the state court verdict; and (d) the state court judgment was entered before

commencement of the federal action.” Bunnell v. Brown, Case No. 3:17-cv-1786-SI,

2 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine takes its name from Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)

and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

2018 WL 3040893, at *3 (D. Or. June 19, 2019) (citing McKithen v. Brown, 481 F.3d

89, 97 (2nd Cir. 2007)). A dismissal under this doctrine is generally without

prejudice, although one from which the plaintiff will not be able to replead in this

Court. See White v. Dobrescu, 651 Fed. App’x 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Because we

affirm the dismissal on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, we treat the

dismissal as one without prejudice.”); see also Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377

F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

should be without prejudice).

Defendants have presented evidence that the disputed easement has been the

subject of considerable litigation in Oregon state court between Plaintiffs and

Defendants’ predecessors in interest in the property. In March 2015, the Deschutes

County Circuit Court issued a general judgment in Thompson v. Reed, Case No.

14CV0443, in which it held that the defendants “have the right to and are allowed to

install gates across and along the driveway so long as they do not unreasonably

interfere with plaintiff’s use of the easement.” Reinecke Decl. Ex. A, at 2. ECF No.

31. The Deschutes circuit court found that the “current and previous configurations

do not unreasonably interfere with plaintiff’s use of the easement,” and that “Plaintiff

and his guests have a duty to close all gates after using them, sufficient to prevent

livestock from challenging those gates.” Id.

In a subsequent case, Thompson v. Reed, Case No. 17CV55430, the Deschutes

County Circuit Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their

cross-petition for declaratory relief “relating to the existence and scope of the non-

exclusive road access easement.” Reinecke Decl. Ex. B, at 1. The circuit court also

granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment “in that the court finds

that plaintiffs and their guests are under a duty and required to close all gates across

the easement after using them sufficient to prevent livestock from challenging those

gates.” Id. A general judgment and money award in favor of the defendants was

entered by the circuit court in Case No. 17CV55430 on October 31, 2018. Reinecke

Decl. Ex. C. Plaintiffs appealed the circuit court’s judgment, but the judgment was

affirmed without opinion by the Oregon Court of Appeals in Case No. A169586.

Reinecke Decl. ¶ 6.

In the present case, Plaintiffs seek the return of their easement and access “to

its original status” and the “property rights of the Plaintiffs [to] be fully restored and

secured in a manner that this cannot continue to occur and cannot again occur.” Am.

Compl. 5. This is essentially what was litigated in Case No. 14CV0443 and Case No.

17CV55430 when the Deschutes County Circuit Court ruled on the existence and

scope of the disputed easement. The relief Plaintiffs seek is inextricably intertwined

with those state court decisions and this Court could not grant the relief requested

without substantively reversing those earlier state court decisions. Plaintiffs’ avenue

for relief from those judgment was to pursue an appeal with the Oregon Court of

Appeals, which they exercised without success. Plaintiffs cannot collaterally attack

the state court judgments by filing a federal action.

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine and this Court is therefore without subject matter jurisdiction to consider

those claims.

Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating the existence of subject

matter jurisdiction in the face of Defendants’ facial and factual challenges to this

Court’s jurisdiction. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ Motion and this case

is DISMISSED. Because the defects in Plaintiffs’ claims cannot be remedied by the

allegation of additional facts, dismissal shall be without further leave to amend. All

other pending motions, including Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike, ECF No. 35; Plaintiffs’

Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 36; Defendants’ Motion for Imposition of

Sanctions, ECF No. 37; and Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 43, are

DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, ECF No. 31. This case is

DISMISSED without prejudice but without leave to amend. All other pending

motions are DENIED. Final judgment shall be entered accordingly.

It is so ORDERED and DATED this 21st day of July 2023.

/s/Ann Aiken

ANN AIKEN

United States District Judge