Mason v. Ramsey

Background

Steven Robert Mason filed a twenty-page complaint against Ismail J. Ramsey and other defendants. The court said the complaint described statutory provisions, legal principles, and court decisions, but did not connect those authorities to facts showing that Mason was entitled to relief. The court found that it was entirely unclear what legal claims or factual narrative Mason was asserting.

Ruling

The court granted the motion to dismiss. It determined that the complaint was “obviously frivolous” and therefore that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the case. The court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. The opinion does not identify any specific claim that Mason could pursue, and it does not allow him to revise the complaint in this case.

The court also stated that dismissal would have been appropriate because Mason failed to file an opposition to two motions to dismiss: one filed by the federal defendants and one filed by defendant Smentana. The response deadlines had passed. The court noted that mail sent to Mason had recently been returned as undeliverable, but the stated basis for the dismissal was the complaint’s lack of a clear legal or factual basis and the resulting lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Effect of the Order

The dismissal disposed of Mason’s complaint, and the court did not grant permission to amend it. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order on December 4, 2023.