Wesson v. Richman

Background

James Wesson, representing himself, sued Alameda County Superior Court Judges James A. Richman and Joseph I. Carson; Hobbs Construction Company; Julie Pantuso; and Joyce Mulville. The complaint focused on a 1994 house fire at Mrs. Wesson’s home and other events affecting Mrs. Wesson, who died in 2003.

The court had allowed Wesson to proceed without paying the filing fee and screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires an early review of certain fee-free lawsuits. The court previously found that the complaint did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the federal court’s legal authority to hear the case. It found no federal claim supporting federal-question jurisdiction and no allegations about the parties’ citizenship supporting diversity jurisdiction. The court also found that the complaint did not state legally sufficient claims, explain Wesson’s authority to bring claims on behalf of Mrs. Wesson, or show that the claims were timely.

Later Filings and Recommendation

The court initially dismissed the complaint but gave Wesson an opportunity to amend. After granting an extension, Wesson filed a document titled “To Rely the Order Granting Motion to Extend Deadline for Amended Complain[t].” The court interpreted that filing as an amended complaint. Judge Ryu recommended dismissing it without leave to amend because it did not correct the deficiencies identified in the earlier screening order.

Wesson then filed a document titled “Reply: Request Reassignment to District Judge and Report and Recommendation to Dismiss Amended Complaint.” Judge Illston interpreted that filing as an objection to the recommendation. Wesson’s objection appeared to dispute whether the case was filed within the applicable time limits and cited 28 U.S.C. § 1658, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Oregon’s two-year personal-injury limitations period.

Ruling

Judge Illston reviewed the filings and agreed that the original complaint did not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction and that Wesson’s later filings did not fix that deficiency. The court stated that timeliness was an additional reason cited in the recommendation, but that the primary reason for dismissal was the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court adopted the report and recommendation in full and dismissed the case, without leave to amend, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The clerk was directed to mail the order to Wesson and close the case.