Wright v. Shell Gas Station

Background

Donald Leon Wright sued Shell defendants—a franchise gas station and the corporate franchisor—and gas station employee Sergio Williams. Wright alleged that Williams shot him fifteen times. Wright represented himself, was proceeding without paying the filing fee, and sought $302 million in damages. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee and had screened his original complaint, finding that it did not establish diversity jurisdiction.

Wright then filed an amended complaint asserting federal and California claims. Before ordering the United States Marshal to serve the defendants, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires review for basic legal viability in qualifying cases.

Problems Identified by the Court

The court identified two deficiencies. First, the amended complaint did not fully describe what happened to Wright and instead referred back to the original complaint. The court explained that an amended complaint must be complete by itself and may not incorporate allegations or exhibits from the original pleading by reference. The court instructed Wright to fully describe the events if he filed another amended complaint.

Second, the amended complaint did not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. Federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under federal law. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship—each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from each defendant—and more than $75,000 in controversy.

The court found that Wright and two defendants—the franchise gas station and Williams—were citizens of California, so the complaint did not establish complete diversity. The court also found no federal-question jurisdiction. It explained that Wright’s reliance on Williams’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm did not make Wright’s civil claims federal claims. The criminal statutes involved did not provide a private right to sue or establish jurisdiction for a civil action.

Ruling and Options Given

The court screened the amended complaint and allowed Wright to amend again. By August 30, 2022, he could either file a second amended complaint establishing diversity jurisdiction by not naming California citizens as defendants, or file a notice of voluntary dismissal that would operate as a dismissal without prejudice to pursuing his state claims in state court. The court noted that Wright could not sue a California citizen in a diversity case unless he asserted federal claims, while also stating that viable federal claims appeared unlikely based on the allegations described.

The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It stated that if Wright filed neither a second amended complaint nor a notice of dismissal by the deadline, the case would be reassigned with the court’s recommendation that it be dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Laurel Beeler stated that the order resolved ECF No. 16.