Moses v. Corte Madera Tow
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-03520
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Moses v. Corte Madera Tow, Judge Beeler screened the complaint, found jurisdictional defects, and allowed Moses to amend by June 21, 2021.
David John Moses was given an opportunity to amend his complaint against Corte Madera Towing; the defendant was not ordered to respond or served under this order.
What happened
In Moses v. Corte Madera Tow, David John Moses, representing himself and without paying the filing fee, alleged that Corte Madera Towing wrongfully towed and held his car after a police-directed traffic stop. He sought $1 billion.
The court found no federal-question jurisdiction because the complaint stated, at most, state-law claims against a private towing company. It also found no diversity jurisdiction because the parties were citizens of California. The court said Moses had not provided enough facts or legal grounds to determine whether he might have a federal claim against a state actor.
The court did not order immediate dismissal. Judge Laurel Beeler gave Moses until June 21, 2021, to file an amended complaint identifying each claim, the supporting facts and actors, and the basis for federal jurisdiction. If he did not amend, the court would reassign the case and recommend dismissal; he could also voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Moses v. Corte Madera Tow · No. 4:21-cv-03520
- Phyllis Hamilton
- May 24, 2021
Background
David John Moses represented himself and proceeded without paying the filing fee. He alleged that Corte Madera Towing took and held his 1999 Subaru Forester after a traffic stop directed by a San Rafael police officer. His handwritten and typed allegations referred to vehicle towing, alleged misconduct by the towing company and police officer, and theories involving British Admiralty maritime law and the status of citizens. He sought $1 billion in damages.
The complaint included a notice showing that Corte Madera Towing had towed a car on April 10, 2021, and handwritten charges of $240 for the tow and $70 per day. The court screened the complaint before directing the United States Marshal to serve it, as required for a complaint filed by a person proceeding without paying the filing fee.
Jurisdiction and Screening
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction exists when a case arises under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires opposing parties to be citizens of different states and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
The court concluded that it lacked federal-question jurisdiction because Moses’s claims against Corte Madera Towing, a private actor, were at most state-law claims. It also concluded that it lacked diversity jurisdiction because all parties were citizens of California; the amount in controversy apparently did not exceed $75,000 as well.
The court separately addressed the possibility that Moses intended to challenge the police officer’s role in impounding the car. State actors may be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when they violate the Constitution or federal law. But the court found that Moses did not identify the factual or legal basis for such a claim, so it could not determine what claim he was asserting or whether he might have a federal claim against a state actor.
Disposition
The court allowed Moses to file an amended complaint by June 21, 2021, if he could cure the deficiencies. The amended complaint had to identify each claim clearly, state the specific facts and actors connected to each claim, and allege the basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court did not dismiss the case in this order. If Moses did not file an amended complaint by the deadline, the court would reassign the case to a district judge and recommend dismissal. Moses could alternatively file a one-page notice of voluntary dismissal, which the order stated would operate as a dismissal without prejudice and allow him to pursue state-law claims in state court.
Judge Laurel Beeler signed the order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.