Garner v. Brown

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
KRISTOFFER L. GARNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT BROWN,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00229-JMK
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On September 11, 2020, self-represented prisoner Kristoffer L. Garner filed
a Complaint along with a Request for Exemption from Payment of Fees and a
Request and Order [to] Waive Fees and Costs.1
In his Complaint, Mr. Garner alleges that Defendant Brown is indebted to
him in the amount of $5,500.00.2 	Mr. Garner makes his allegation on a form
provided by the District Court of the State of Alaska for initiating small claims
actions.3 	Similarly, Mr. Garner’s motions are on forms provided by the District
Court of the State of Alaska.4
1 Dockets 1–3.
2 Docket 1.
3 Docket 1.
4 See Dockets 2–3.
Case 3:20-cv-00229-JMK Document 5 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 7

3:20-cv-00229-JMK, Garner v. Brown
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 7
For relief, Mr. Garner requests small claims procedure and $5,500.00.5
SCREENING STANDARD
Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil
complaint filed by a self-represented prisoner seeking a waiver of the prepayment
of the filing fee. In this screening, a court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that the action:
(i) 	is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) 	fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) 	seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.6
To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for relief, courts
consider whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter that, if accepted
as true, “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”7 	In conducting its
review, a court must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff’s pleading and
give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.8 Before a court may dismiss any portion
5 Docket 1 at 1.
6 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b).
7 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In making this determination, a court may consider “materials that
are submitted with and attached to the Complaint.” United States v. Corinthian Colleges,
655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lee v. L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)).
8 See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d
1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)).
Case 3:20-cv-00229-JMK Document 5 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 7

3:20-cv-00229-JMK, Garner v. Brown
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 7
of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the
court must provide the plaintiff with a statement of the deficiencies in the complaint
and an opportunity to amend or otherwise address the problems, unless to do so
would be futile.9
Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has established that “the
federal 	courts 	are 	under 	an 	independent 	obligation 	to 	examine 	their 	own
jurisdiction[.]”10 In a federal court proceeding, a jurisdictional defect may be raised
at any time.11
DISCUSSION
Mr. Garner requests relief through the small claims process overseen by the
District Court for the State of Alaska. 	He has filed his action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Alaska. 	The U.S. District Court is a federal court, which
addresses questions of federal law or controversies between parties with diverse
citizenship. Small claims procedure is a state court process presided over by the
District Court for the State of Alaska. It is clear on its face that Mr. Garner has filed
an action in the incorrect district court. 	Without a federal question or diverse
9 See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Albrecht v.
Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1988)).
10 United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995).
11 Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2013).
Case 3:20-cv-00229-JMK Document 5 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 7

3:20-cv-00229-JMK, Garner v. Brown
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 7
parties, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear this case. 	Mr. Garner’s action must
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
I. 	Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is “[a] court's power to decide a case or issue a decree.”12 	A
court’s 	subject 	matter 	jurisdiction 	is 	its 	“statutory 	or 	constitutional 	power 	to
adjudicate a case.”13 	As a federal court, this Court has limited subject matter
jurisdiction. 	It possesses “only that power authorized by the Constitution and
statute.”14 This means that the Court has the authority to hear only specified types
of cases.15 	“In civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction is generally conferred upon
federal district courts either through diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or
federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”16
Federal question jurisdiction gives a federal court the authority to consider
cases 	brought 	under 	the 	United 	States 	Constitution 	or 	federal 	statutes.17
12 BLACK ’S L AW DICTIONARY (9th ed. 2009) (definition of “jurisdiction”).
13 Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998).
14 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted);
see also, e.g., A-Z Intern. v. Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003).
15 	See, 	e.g., 	United 	States 	v. 	Marks, 	530 	F.3d 	779, 	810 	(9th 	Cir. 	2008), 	citing
DaimlerChrysler v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 (2006); United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d
1005, 1010 (9th Cir. 2000).
16 Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005).
17 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Case 3:20-cv-00229-JMK Document 5 Filed 11/10/20 Page 4 of 7

3:20-cv-00229-JMK, Garner v. Brown
Order of Dismissal
Page 5 of 7
Mr. Garner’s Complaint alleges a small claims dispute. 	The Complaint does not
cite to a federal statute, nor does it allege sufficient facts to state a viable federal
constitutional claim.18 Because the complaint does not clearly describe a violation
of the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute that is redressable by a private citizen
in federal court, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this
case.
Diversity jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff have “citizenship which is
diverse from that of every defendant” and an amount in controversy greater than
$75,000.19 	This means that this Court could have jurisdiction over a case
(including one involving only state law issues) when the plaintiff demonstrates that
he is a citizen of a different state than the citizenship of each of the defendants.20
The Complaint indicates that $5,500.00 is the amount in controversy. This amount
is well below the $75,000.00 required amount for diversity jurisdiction. Therefore,
this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction over his complaint, regardless of the
amount in controversy alleged.
18 See Docket 1.
19 28 U.S.C. § 1332; See Cook v. AVI Casino Enterprises, Inc., 548 F.3d 718, 722 (9th
Cir. 2008) (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (diversity jurisdiction
requires “complete diversity of citizenship”)).
20 Id. (quoting Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377).
Case 3:20-cv-00229-JMK Document 5 Filed 11/10/20 Page 5 of 7

3:20-cv-00229-JMK, Garner v. Brown
Order of Dismissal
Page 6 of 7
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds it has neither federal question
jurisdiction nor diversity jurisdiction over this case. 	Therefore, this Court has no
subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. When a court determines “that it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”21 	In light of the
foregoing, Mr. Garner’s Complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
II. 	The District Court for the State of Alaska
The District Court for the State of Alaska is a trial court of limited jurisdiction
to established to hear specific state law claims.22 	For instance, the District Court
for the State of Alaska may preside over criminal misdemeanors under Alaska
state law, civil suits involving and less than $100,000.00 in controversy, small
claims, and presumptive death hearings.23 	The District Court for the State of
Alaska in Anchorage is at 825 West 4th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99501-2004.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
21 Fed. R. Civ. P. (12)(h)(3).
22 AS 22.15.070.
23 See AS 22.15.030–AS 22.15.030.060.
Case 3:20-cv-00229-JMK Document 5 Filed 11/10/20 Page 6 of 7

3:20-cv-00229-JMK, Garner v. Brown
Order of Dismissal
Page 7 of 7
3. The Clerk of Court shall submit a final judgment. Further, the Clerk of Court
shall return Dockets 1–3 to Mr. Garner along with a copy of this order.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska this 10th day of November, 2020.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
Case 3:20-cv-00229-JMK Document 5 Filed 11/10/20 Page 7 of 7