Jesse O Martinez V Andy Samarripas

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Plaintiff Jesse O. Martinez filed a complaint against Andy Samarripas alleging conspiracies involving supernatural events and unlawful acts, but the court found the complaint incoherent and lacking specific details about the defendant or claims. Martinez failed to establish federal question or diversity jurisdiction, did not comply with court orders to amend his complaint or provide financial information for an in forma pauperis (IFP) application, and refused to register as an electronic filer. The magistrate judge recommends dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance, or under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

Issues

  • Martinez failed to comply with multiple court orders, including filing an amended complaint, submitting an amended IFP application, and registering as a CM/ECF user. His non-compliance necessitated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
  • The Court determined that Plaintiff Jesse O. Martinez's complaint lacked sufficient facts to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, as it was patently insubstantial and without a plausible foundation. The complaint's allegations, involving a supernatural event and vague references to famous individuals, failed to invoke either federal question or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

Holdings

  • The plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders, including not filing an amended complaint and not registering as an ECF user, necessitates dismissal under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The plaintiff's non-compliance with financial disclosure requirements further undermines the case's viability.
  • The court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiff's insubstantial and frivolous claims, which fail to establish a federal question or diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff's allegations involving supernatural events and vague references to famous figures are deemed insufficient to invoke federal court authority.

Remedies

  • Alternatively, the undersigned recommends dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
  • The undersigned further recommends denying as moot Martinez's motion for court-appointed counsel due to the lack of jurisdiction and failure to comply with court orders.
  • The undersigned recommends denying the in forma pauperis (IFP) application and dismissing the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Legal Principles

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction requiring plaintiffs to establish either federal question jurisdiction (based on federal law) or diversity jurisdiction (based on party citizenship and $75k+ amount in controversy). Courts must dismiss cases where pleadings are insubstantial or frivolous, lacking plausible factual foundation. Non-compliance with court orders to amend pleadings or provide financial information also justifies dismissal under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

Precedent Name

  • Gunn v. Minton
  • Stockman v. Fed. Elec. Comm'n
  • Trevino v. NFN NLN
  • Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n
  • Isom v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
  • Bell v. Hood
  • Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.
  • Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA
  • Settlement Funding, L.L.C. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd.
  • Minorchio v. Bank of Am.
  • Coleman v. Groom
  • Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  • Dilworth v. Dall. Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist.

Cited Statute

  • Diversity Jurisdiction
  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8
  • Federal Question Jurisdiction
  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b)

Judge Name

Amanda 'Amy' R. Burch

Passage Text

  • Because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the United States District Judge (1) deny Martinez's IFP application, Dkt. No. 2, and (2) dismiss his complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
  • Martinez's pleadings are patently insubstantial and without a plausible foundation, thereby depriving the Court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
  • Alternatively, Martinez's complaint is subject to dismissal without prejudice because he has not complied with Court orders.