COOKE v. DOE

Civ. No. 6:17-cv-825-TC.

DAVID L. COOKE, Plaintiff, v. REGINA `DOE'; ZIG `DOE'; `JANE DOE2'; `JOHN DOE2', Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Oregon.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David L. Cooke, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL J. McSHANE, District Judge.

On May 25, 2017 prose plaintiff, David Cooke, filed this action "to investigate, address, resolve, & remedy the theft, remote control, and/or unlawful detention or disappearance of plaintiffs personal property during the interval from 10/10/2010 to the present." Amended Complaint (#4) at p. 5. On June 1, 2017, the court denied plaintiffs application for in forma pauperis (IFP) status and ordered plaintiff to pay the filing fee. In addition, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to allege subject matter jurisdiction and to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. The court advised plaintiff that a failure to pay the filing fee and/or file an amended complaint as ordered would result in the dismissal of this action.

On June 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a second application for IFP status. Although it appears plaintiff can afford the costs of litigation, out of an abundance of caution, the application is granted and the case may proceed without payment of the filing fee.

On June 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On June 8, 2017, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The amendments do not cure the deficiencies noted in the court's June 1, 2017 order. The third amended complaint fails to specifically identify any defendant, or link any damage suffered by plaintiff to any alleged acts taken ostensibly pursuant to any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory. At best, plaintiff offers mere conclusions that: unidentified defendant John Doe2 had "the authority of . . . a current and/or retired police chief, as well as . . . the local fire marshal [and] claiming to have the authority of the office of the President of the United States of America"; defendants "acted under color of criminal court"; and the defendants' activities "comprises clearly established customs and policies, and procedures of Defendants under color oflaw." Third Amended Complaint (#9) at pp. 1, 3. There are no allegations connecting any governmental authority bestowed upon defendants to the alleged deprivations suffered by plaintiff. Moreover, plaintiff still fails to allege facts demonstrating violation of a federal or constitutional right. Accordingly, plaintiff fails to cure the deficiencies in the complaint as ordered by the court. Moreover, because the defendants cannot be identified, it is clear that further amendment cannot cure the deficiencies.

Because plaintiff's third amended complaint fails to sufficiently allege subject matter jurisdiction and plausibly allege entitlement to relief, this action is dismissed.

CONCLUSION

This action is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases