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.

Wright v. Petty

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

May 17, 2018

KEITH WRIGHT, Plaintiff,
v.
FNU PETTY, et al., Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          SUZANNE MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. Background.

         On February 16, 2018, Keith Wright, a California prisoner appearing Pro se, [1] brought this personal injury action seeking monetary relief for injuries allegedly sustained on July 23, 2014, while he was “housed as a Calif inmate, ” Doc. 1, at 9, [2] at the North Fork Correctional Center (North For private prison owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). See Id. at 4, 7, 9, 10. United States District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti has referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for i proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). See Doc. 4.

         A. Plaintiff's claims.

         Plaintiff identifies himself as a state prisoner in California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) custody, now housed at CDCR's California City Correctional Facility. See Doc. 1, at 3, 4. He names two[3]Defendants: (1) Petty, a North Fork correctional officer and CCA employee, whose “[p]lace of employment and/or residence” is in Sayre, Oklahoma, and (2) CCA, whose “[p]lace of employment and/or residence” is in Nashville, Tennessee. Id. at 4.[4]

         In the first of two claims, Plaintiff contends Defendant Petty “closed [a] two-three hundred pound steel door on an over his toe and foot leading to substantial bleeding, pain, swelling, and immediate and future medical treatment.” Id. at 8. He maintains that Defendant Petty “had a duty to use due care” and that her “negligent conduct” was the “proximate cause” of his injuries. Id. When prompted by his form complaint to “[l]ist the right that [he] believe[s] was violated, ” Plaintiff stated: “Federal law and substantive state California negligence law; Cal. Const. Art. I § 17; Cal. Tort Claims Act Gov't Code §§ 810.844.6(b) and Civil Code § 1714.” Id. at 6.

         In his second claim, Plaintiff seeks relief “from Defendant CCA for foreseeable premise negligence . . . .” Id. at 9. He alleges that “negligence on the employee Defendant Petty's part . . . was foreseeable by the premise owner' owing a legal duty to use due care to prevent injuries . . . .” Id. at 10. He claims Defendant CCA “breached the duty” and is “liable for the Plaintiff's injury . . . .” Id. When “[l]ist[ing] the right that [he] believe[s] was violated, ” Plaintiff stated: “Federal and substantive state California negligence foreseeability and premise ownership law. Cal. Tort Claim Act Gov't. Code § 810 and Civil Code § 1714.” Id. at 7.

         B. Jurisdiction.

         Though Plaintiff utilized this Court's form Pro Se Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, he disclaimed jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (and 42 U.S.C. § 1983) and asserted it under the following: “The ‘Erie Doctrine'”; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); “California choice-of-law rules”; and “federal case law.” Doc. 1, at 2. Among these, Sections 1331 and 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code provide a basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction-federal question and diversity, respectively.

         The court does not have jurisdiction over this matter under Section 1331-Plaintiff's claims do not “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Instead, Plaintiff predicates his right to relief solely on state-law claims. And, under the required broad reading of his complaint, it appears from its face that “the matter in controversy exceeds . . . $75, 000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of different States . . . .” Id. § 1332(a)(1). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages exceeding the jurisdictional amount, see Doc. 1, at 7, 9; he contends Defendant Petty resides and works in Oklahoma, see Id. at 4;[5] he claims Defendant CCA does the same in Nashville, Tennessee, see id.;[6] and, he alleges as of the time of filing his complaint that he is a California prisoner who is housed at a prison facility in California. See id.[7]

         C. Order to show cause.

         On mandatory screening, [8] because it further appeared from the face of Plaintiff's complaint that any stated claim was time-barred, the undersigned notified him that summary dismissal of his complaint was warranted. See Doc. 8. The undersigned gave Plaintiff the opportunity to address the issue by “order[ing] him to show cause-that is, to fully detail any reason, including possible tolling, ” id., -why his complaint should not be dismissed as time-barred. Id. The Clerk of Court mailed that Order to the last address Plaintiff provided to the court, see Docs. 1, 2, and it has not been returned to the court as undeliverable. Under this Court's local rules (LCvR), the order is “deemed delivered.” LCvR 5.4(a).[9] Plaintiff, however, has failed to file a response, timely or otherwise, to the show cause order, and he has not sought additional time to do so.

         In short, Plaintiff has not communicated with the court in any manner since the undersigned entered the order to show cause more than two months ago.

         II. ...


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.