United States District Court, D. Alaska
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
SHARON
L. GLEASON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On July
5, 2018, the Court screened the initial Complaint Under the
Civil Rights Act and Amended Application to Waive the Filing
Fee (Dockets 1 & 4) filed by self-represented Plaintiff,
Raul Antonio Reyes Crespo, as required by federal
law.[1] The Court explained the deficiencies in
the pleading and accorded Mr. Crespo “until August 9,
2018 to file a First Amended Complaint in this case that
states a cause of action.”[2]
In
addition to the required screening in this case, federal law
requires a court to dismiss a case if it determines at any
time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.[3]
“Subject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived or
forfeited.”[4] This Court has the authority to hear only
specific types of cases.[5] “The burden of establishing
federal jurisdiction is on the party invoking federal
jurisdiction.”[6]
Mr.
Crespo filed a First Amended Complaint under the Civil Rights
Act, asserting that Mission Staff have banned him from their
facilities for a year.[7] Mr. Crespo's claims include: that
there was “[n]o video evidence, paperwork evidence
… exhibits, ” witnesses or “compliance
with … Rules of Evidence[;]” that he should have
been given “three (3) verbal warnings” before
being banned from the premises; and that Mission Staff denied
his right to assemble on Mission premises, where his
biological and/or tribal family may still be
welcome.[8] Mr. Crespo claims that Mission Staff's
conduct violated his constitutional right to due process, and
as a result, his “homeless condition has become an
Alaskan personal crisis.”[9] As explained below, however, the
federal constitution does not require Mission Staff to any of
the above.
Mr.
Crespo's First Amended Complaint contains the same
deficiencies the Court explained when reviewing his initial
pleading:
Mr. Crespo's complaint does not allege facts that would
demonstrate that this federal court has jurisdiction to hear
his claim… [T]he Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §
1983 … protects individuals from the deprivation of
federal constitutional or statutory rights that are caused by
persons acting “under color of state law.” A
person acts “under color of state law” when the
person acts or purports to act in the performance of official
duties under any state or municipal law, ordinance or
regulation.[10]…
Mr. Crespo's complaint fails to plausibly allege that the
Anchorage Gospel Rescue Mission staff were acting under color
of state law. Nor does he allege the federal constitutional
or statutory violation that he believes was committed by that
staff. Thus, he does not appear to have asserted a claim for
relief under Section 1983.[11]
The
Court takes judicial notice[12] that the Anchorage Gospel
Rescue Mission is a Christian organization that provides food
and shelter for people in need.[13] “The Mission is
entirely funded by donations from the community and takes no
government funds.”[14]Mr. Crespo has again, therefore, named
non-state actors as defendants and cannot bring a claim
against them under the Due Process Clause of the federal
Constitution.
Thus,
Mr. Crespo has failed to state a claim for relief over which
this Court has jurisdiction. The Court finds that any further
attempt at curing this problem would be futile.[15]
IT
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. This
case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
2. The
Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment
accordingly.
---------