Currie v. Catholic Charities

Background

Minnie Kelly Currie, representing herself, filed an amended complaint against Catholic Charities and other individual defendants. She alleged violations of California Welfare and Institutions Code § 14124.10, California Penal Code § 6029, and 18 U.S.C. § 242. The opinion states that Currie also alleged that a fire occurred and that she developed several medical and disability-related conditions. In a letter to the court, she alleged that a device had been implanted in her right palm and asked who had her power of attorney.

The court had previously allowed Currie to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court was required to screen the amended complaint for claims that were frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it had to read a self-represented plaintiff’s pleadings generously and generally allow amendment unless the defects could not be fixed.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Federal courts have limited authority. Currie asserted both federal-question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction, but the court found that she established neither.

The two state-law claims could not support federal-question jurisdiction because they did not arise under federal law or the federal Constitution. Currie’s claim under 18 U.S.C. § 242 also could not support jurisdiction. Section 242 is a federal criminal statute prohibiting the deprivation of rights under color of law, but it does not create a private civil claim for damages or other relief. The court therefore found that this was not a legally valid federal claim that could establish federal-question jurisdiction.

The court also rejected diversity jurisdiction. Currie identified a San Francisco, California address, and the complaint gave San Francisco addresses for all three defendants. Because the complaint did not allege the defendants’ citizenship or otherwise show that every plaintiff was a citizen of a different state from every defendant, it did not establish complete diversity.

Merits Discussion

The court stated in the alternative that the complaint was legally insufficient under the screening standard in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which parallels the standard for dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The complaint was confusing, did not clearly identify what wrongdoing each defendant allegedly committed, and did not connect the factual allegations to particular legal claims. For those reasons, the court stated that the complaint was dismissed.

Disposition

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that Currie could pursue her state-law claims in state court, but declined to grant leave to amend. It concluded that another amendment aimed at establishing federal jurisdiction would be futile because Currie had again asserted the legally unavailable claim under 18 U.S.C. § 242 after being advised that she could not do so.