DUSTIN B. PEAD, Magistrate Judge.
This case is before Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead pursuant to a 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1)(B) referral from District Court Judge Dale Kimball. (ECF No. 21.)
On April 5, 2017, the court granted Plaintiff Gregg Anderson's (Plaintiff or Anderson) application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and waived the prepayment of filing fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915. (ECF No. 2.)
Currently pending before this court are three separate motions to dismiss the complaint filed by Liberty Title, Mr. Watts and Wells Fargo. (ECF No. 25, ECF No. 35, ECF No. 36.)
This court "must, sua sponte, satisfy itself of its power to adjudicate in every case and at every stage of the proceedings." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Narvaez, 149 F.3d 1269, 1270-1271 (10
Upon review, the court is unable to identify any basis for this court's jurisdiction. Plaintiff asserts diversity jurisdiction based upon his domicile in Oregon and the Defendants location in the State of Utah. Specifically, Mr. Anderson states that he is "domicile[d] within the State of Oregon with no intention of returning to Utah," and the Defendants' are "domicile[d]" and "resid[e]" in "the State of Utah." (ECF No. 14 at 1.) The court docket, however, lists Mr. Anderson's current address as Bountiful, Utah, and Plaintiff's pleading was signed and notarized in Davis County, Utah.
Absent diversity or federal question jurisdiction this court is prohibited from hearing Mr. Anderson's case. A basis for neither is evident on the face of the complaint. As such, the court lacks jurisdiction and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Whenever the court authorizes a party to proceed without the prepayment of fees under the IFP statute, the court is required to "dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal. . . is frivolous or malicious . . . [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim for relief under the IPF statute, the court employs the same standard used for analyzing motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In undertaking this analysis, the court is mindful that Mr. Anderson is pro se, and "[a] pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a Plaintiff to provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Compliance with Rule 8 compels a Plaintiff to "explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant's action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated." Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10
The allegations in this case are extremely limited. For example, the only reference to Wells Fargo is found at paragraph four (4) and the only reference to Liberty Title is at paragraph ten (10). (ECF No. 14.) Additionally, Plaintiff fails to state causes of action against any of the Defendants. And, although Mr. Anderson's "allegations" appear to suggest some type of wrongdoing, it is not the obligation of this court to construct legal theories on his behalf. Absent additional information, Defendants lack sufficient notice to prepare a defense and this court lacks the information necessary for it to adjudicate the merits. Accordingly, as an alternative basis for dismissal, the court also dismisses Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Accordingly, as set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Mr. Anderson's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
2. Plaintiff shall have until
3. Consistent therewith, the motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Defendant Liberty Title (ECF No. 25) and Wells Fargo (ECF No. 36) are granted. Defendant Watt's motion to dismiss for failure to effect proper service is denied as moot. (ECF No. 35.)
SO ORDERED.