Risby v. Hawley
- Jeffrey White
- 4:23-cv-04842
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Risby v. Hawley, Judge Jeffrey White dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because the amended complaint did not establish federal or diversity jurisdiction.
Jerome Risby’s case against Rebecca Hawley was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the court granted Risby’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee.
What happened
In Risby v. Hawley, Jerome Risby sued Rebecca Hawley and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. The court granted that request and reviewed his amended complaint after a magistrate judge recommended dismissal.
The court found that Risby’s citations to federal provisions did not create federal claims for defamation or false imprisonment. It also found that he did not allege facts showing that he and Hawley were citizens of different states, so the court could not hear his state-law claims through diversity jurisdiction.
Judge Jeffrey White concluded that further amendment would be futile. The court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, entered the order as the judgment, and directed the clerk to close the file.
The detailed version
- Risby v. Hawley · No. 4:23-cv-04842
- Jeffrey White
- Jan. 19, 2024
Background
Jerome Risby sued Rebecca Hawley. The opinion identifies Risby as proceeding without a lawyer. Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu recommended dismissing the complaint while allowing amendment. Risby did not object to that recommendation; instead, he filed an amended complaint on January 17, 2024.
The court granted Risby’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee. It then screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires the court to dismiss certain cases filed without prepayment of fees. The court said it had to read a self-represented plaintiff’s complaint liberally, but could not supply essential facts or legal elements that the complaint did not include.
Jurisdiction analysis
The court held that Risby still had not shown that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.
First, Risby asserted federal-question jurisdiction and cited 28 U.S.C. § 4101 and 25 U.S.C. § 11.404. The court explained that § 4101 defines defamation in the context of foreign judgments and does not create a federal defamation claim. The court understood the second citation as apparently referring to 25 C.F.R. § 11.404, a regulation stating that false imprisonment is a misdemeanor within regulations concerning Courts of Indian Offenses and a Law and Order Code. The court concluded that neither provision gave Risby a federal claim for defamation or false imprisonment.
Second, the court found that Risby still had not alleged facts showing that he and Hawley were citizens of different states. As a result, he had not established diversity jurisdiction over his state-law claims for defamation, malicious prosecution, or false imprisonment.
Ruling
Judge Jeffrey S. White concluded that further amendment would be futile. The court therefore dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order states that it constituted the judgment in the case and directed the clerk to close the file. The court did not decide the merits of Risby’s defamation, malicious-prosecution, or false-imprisonment claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.