United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Honorable John J. Tuchi, United States District Judge.
At
issue are three Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 61, 62, 64) filed
by the remaining Defendants in this matter, as well as a
Motion for Summary Adjudication (Doc. 70). The Court resolves
the Motions without oral argument. See LRCiv 7.2(f).
The
Court previously entered an Order (Doc. 59) dismissing all of
the claims in Plaintiff's Complaint but granting
Plaintiff leave to amend certain claims. Plaintiff then filed
a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 60, FAC), which all remaining
Defendants now seek to dismiss (Docs. 61, 62, 64).
Plaintiff
requested an extension of time (Doc. 67) to respond to the
Motion to Dismiss filed by EMPACT Suicide Prevention Center
(Doc. 61), which the Court granted (Doc. 68), and Plaintiff
then filed a Response (Doc. 69) to EMPACT's Motion to
Dismiss. Because the Court will grant EMPACT's Motion, it
did not await a Reply.
Plaintiff
did not timely file a Response to the Motions to Dismiss
filed by the State Defendants (Doc. 62) or the Quail Run
Defendants (Doc. 64), and the Court will therefore grant
those Motions both under LRCiv 7.2(i) and because Plaintiff
failed to cure the defects identified in the Court's
prior Order. The Court will therefore dismiss the claims
against the State Defendants and the Quail Run Defendants
with prejudice and grant the Quail Run Defendants' Motion
for Summary Adjudication (Doc. 70).
With
regard to Plaintiff's remaining claims against EMPACT,
the Court found in its prior Order (Doc. 59) that
Plaintiff's claims in the Complaint failed because, among
other reasons, (1) Plaintiff did not make any allegation as
to an action taken by EMPACT that would give rise to a claim,
plainly failing to meet the pleading requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8; and (2) Plaintiff did not allege
any facts to show that EMPACT is a state actor, as required
to sustain a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against it.
In the
FAC, Plaintiff has done nothing to cure these defects. As in
the original Complaint, the sole allegation even implicating
EMPACT is that one of its employees “asked to keep M.R.
for three more days.” (FAC ¶ 16.) As the Court
stated in its prior Order, this is wholly insufficient to
support Plaintiff's claims, and, considering Plaintiff
did not even begin to cure the defects in his claims when
given the opportunity, the Court will now dismiss those
claims with prejudice.
The
Court also notes that Plaintiff did not state a federal claim
in the Complaint and again failed to state a § 1983
claim against EMPACT in the FAC, and the Court finds that
Plaintiff cannot plausibly cure the defect in his § 1983
claim by amendment. Without that federal question claim and
considering that diversity jurisdiction is clearly lacking,
the Court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's state law claims. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1332. The United States Supreme Court has
stated that a federal court must not disregard or evade the
limits on its subject matter jurisdiction. Owen Equip.
& Erections Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978).
Thus, a federal court is obligated to inquire into its
subject matter jurisdiction in each case and to dismiss a
case when subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See
Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th
Cir. 2004); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). To proceed in federal
court, a plaintiff must allege enough in the complaint for
the court to conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Charles Alan Wright &
Arthur R. Miller, 5 Fed. Practice &
Procedure § 1206 (3d ed. 2014). In the FAC,
Plaintiff has failed to show that the Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over his claims, and the Court must
dismiss Plaintiffs claims for this additional reason.
IT
IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant
EMPACT-Suicide Prevention Center, an Arizona Nonprofit
Corporation's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 61).
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the State
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 62).
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants Quail Run
Behavioral Health and Candy Zammit, et ux.'s
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 64).
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants Quail Run
Behavioral Health and Candy Zammit, et ux.'s
Motion for Adjudication of their Motion to Dismiss (Doc.7O).
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that all of Plaintiff s claims in
the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 60) are dismissed with
prejudice.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to
enter judgment ...