Mark Anthony Mall v. Adrienne Marie Waibel, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed pro se Plaintiff Mark Anthony Mall’s Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend. The court held that Plaintiff failed to adequately allege that the defendants acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that his quiet-title and declaratory-judgment claims did not independently establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. The Second Amended Complaint failed to state a § 1983 claim because it did not sufficiently allege that Defendants were state actors or acted under color of state law.
2. The quiet-title and declaratory-judgment claims did not create an independent cause of action under federal law or confer subject-matter jurisdiction on the district court.
3. Dismissal without leave to amend was proper because Plaintiff had twice been given an opportunity to amend and could not state a federal claim for which relief could be granted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Second Amended Complaint adequately alleged that Defendants were state actors or acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether Plaintiff's quiet-title and declaratory-judgment claims created an independent federal cause of action or conferred federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction.
3. Whether the Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend after Plaintiff had already received two opportunities to amend.

Disposition

dismissed