Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted Ashley Harris’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed her complaint without service because it failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction and did not include a demand for relief. The court granted leave to amend within 30 days, denied appointment of pro bono counsel, and denied a motion to seal. The court identified the apparent claims as state-law battery and medical malpractice allegations.
Holdings
- The complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local procedural rules do not create a substantive federal cause of action or otherwise provide a basis for federal-question jurisdiction, and the factual allegations sounded in state-law tort claims.
- The complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction because it did not allege that the parties were citizens of different states or identify an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
- The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because the jurisdictional and pleading deficiencies could potentially be cured by amendment.
- The motion for appointment of pro bono counsel was denied because Harris did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the court's discretionary request for volunteer counsel.
- The motion to seal was denied because it supplied no reasoning or factual basis sufficient to overcome the strong presumption of public access to court records.
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint established federal-question or diversity subject matter jurisdiction.
- Whether the complaint satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), including the requirement to state the grounds for jurisdiction and a demand for relief.
- Whether Harris was entitled to appointment of pro bono counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
- Whether Harris established compelling reasons sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access and seal the motion.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (6)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)(followed)
- Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
- Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 370, 374 (U.S. 1978)(followed)
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)
- United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…