Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reyes Crespo v. Anchorage Gospel Rescue Mission Staff

United States District Court, D. Alaska

October 24, 2018

RAUL ANTONIO REYES CRESPO, Plaintiff,
v.
ANCHORAGE GOSPEL RESCUE MISSION STAFF, Defendant.

          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.

---------


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.