Johnson v. Veritas Investment Inc

Background

James Ellis Johnson filed a First Amended Complaint on March 28, 2024, after the court had dismissed his original complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is a court’s legal authority to hear a case. The earlier order found that Johnson had not alleged either federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

In the amended complaint, Johnson added “Discrimination” to his description of the federal laws or rights involved and listed allegations including negligence, liability, accessories before the fact to assault, battery, attempted murder, and burglary. He cited 31 U.S.C. § 6711 as the basis for a federal discrimination claim. Defendants moved again to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and Johnson opposed the motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that federal courts have jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. It concluded that 31 U.S.C. § 6711 could not apply to this case because all defendants were private parties and Johnson did not name a local government as a defendant. The court therefore concluded that Johnson had again failed to establish jurisdiction over the named defendants.

The court also considered whether Johnson should receive another opportunity to amend his complaint. Although amendments are generally allowed when justice requires, the court explained that amendment may be denied when it would be futile. Because the court did not believe Johnson could correct the jurisdictional problem and had already allowed him to amend once, it found that another amendment would be futile.

Disposition

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court dismissed the action without leave to amend and directed the clerk to close the file.