La' Motte v. Jones
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-03022
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In La' Motte v. Jones, Judge Corley dismissed Kenneth La' Motte’s civil-rights case, barring his federal claim but preserving possible state-law claims.
Kenneth La' Motte’s federal civil-rights claim was dismissed with prejudice, and he was not allowed to amend the complaint. The ruling left state-law claims available for pursuit in state court against Pecola Jones and the Ke’ron La’Motte Foundation.
What happened
In La' Motte v. Jones, Kenneth La' Motte, an unrepresented jail inmate, sued Pecola Jones and the Ke’ron La’Motte Foundation under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that Jones used his last name for the Foundation without permission and did not provide him with proceeds.
The court ruled that the complaint did not state a valid federal claim. It explained that using someone’s last name without permission was not shown to violate federal law, and that Jones and the Foundation were private parties rather than government actors. The court also said La' Motte could pursue any state-law claim in state court.
Judge Corley dismissed the case without allowing an amended complaint. The dismissal was with prejudice as to the federal civil-rights claim, but without prejudice to bringing state-law claims in state court.
The detailed version
- La' Motte v. Jones · No. 3:23-cv-03022
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 14, 2023
Background
Kenneth La' Motte, an inmate at the Contra Costa County Jail who was proceeding without an attorney, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pecola Jones and the Ke’ron La’Motte Foundation. He alleged that Jones started the Foundation without his permission to use his last name, which was also the last name of their deceased son, for whom the Foundation was named. He also alleged that Jones had not sent him any of the Foundation’s proceeds. He sought an audit of the Foundation’s finances and an order stopping continued use of his last name.
Court’s Analysis
The court screened the complaint under the statute requiring federal courts to review prisoners’ claims against governmental entities or officials. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right secured by federal law and action under color of state law, meaning action attributable to the government.
The court concluded that the complaint satisfied neither requirement. It stated that it was not aware of authority making use of another person’s last name without permission a violation of the Constitution or federal law. Any claim based only on state law could not proceed under § 1983. The court also held that Jones and the Foundation were a private individual and private entity, respectively, and therefore were not acting under color of state law.
The court found that amendment would be futile because the complaint made clear that the claim concerned a private individual and private entity and the use of La' Motte’s last name. It stated that La' Motte could bring a state-law claim in state court. The court further stated that it did not have diversity jurisdiction over such a claim because the parties resided in the same state.
Disposition
Judge Corley dismissed the case for failure to state a claim capable of judicial review and determination. The dismissal was without leave to amend and with prejudice as to a § 1983 claim, but without prejudice to bringing state-law claims in state court. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.