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.

Julie Fritcher v. Melvin R. Joseph

February 26, 2012

JULIE FRITCHER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MELVIN R. JOSEPH, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (ECF No. 1) OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY-DAYS

Julie Fritcher ("Plaintiff"), an enrolled tribal member of the Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe ("Tribe"), brings this action in pro persona and in forma pauperis against the Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Indian Reservation, Defendant tribal officers Melvin Joseph, Mary Wuester, Stacy Mike, Janet Hansen, and Beverly Newell, and Does 1-250. She seeks freedom of information access to Tribal documents and relief for Defendants failure to comply with federal grant funding contract requirements and Tribe governance obligations.

I. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

The Court finds Plaintiff's Complaint confusing, but it appears to center upon the following allegations:

Defendants are not compliant with requirements in Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs tribal government grant funding contracts*fn1 (Compl. p. 2-3, ECF No. 1);

Defendants are not compliant with the federal Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") regarding Plaintiff's requests for tribal and federal grant program documents (Compl. at 3);

Defendants are engaged in unspecified illegal hiring practices (Id. at 11-12); Defendants "[have made] recommendations without any other valid causes [which] were wrong and were intended to cause and did cause [Plaintiff] to suffer anguish, stress, worry and further severe emotional distress ... [and Defendants' conduct] was intentional, malicious, in bad faith and in conscious disregard of [Plaintiff's] legal/civil rights ... " (Id. at 4);

Defendants' alleged actions were in bad faith and caused Plaintiff emotional distress. She seeks "a stay and summons order ... so all information/records can be obtained ... to preserve records due to the facts that [D]efendant(s) are engaging in illegal activities ... damages, costs of suit herein and court costs." (Id. at 4-5.)

Plaintiff alleges federal question jurisdiction under FOIA. (Civil Cover Sheet, p. 1, ECF No. 1.)

II. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

A. Pleading Requirements Generally

A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief ...." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949--50.*fn2

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The district court is a court of limited jurisdiction and is not empowered to hear every dispute filed by litigants. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005); A--Z Int'l. v. Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003). The district court "possess[es] only the power authorized by Constitution and statute," and may only adjudicate claims raising federal questions or involving parties with diverse citizenship. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The federal ...


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.