Yaskoweak v. Church of Scientology
1:19-cv-00867
D.N.M.Sep 25, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Mark A. Yaskoweak filed a pro se complaint on September 18, 2019, alleging he was ambushed, kidnapped, and implanted with "extraterrestrial-alien communications weaponry" that controls his thoughts.
- He sought the court’s assistance to hear a Protection From Abuse (PFA) case against the Church of Scientology and affiliates and asked to communicate his thoughts in court because the alleged implant cannot be safely removed.
- Plaintiff did not allege the citizenship of any defendant or identify any federal statute or constitutional provision as the basis for federal jurisdiction.
- The court reviewed jurisdiction sua sponte and noted the plaintiff bears the burden to plead facts supporting federal jurisdiction.
- The court found neither diversity nor federal-question jurisdiction adequately alleged and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diversity jurisdiction (complete diversity) | Yaskoweak invoked federal court but did not allege defendants' citizenship | No jurisdictional facts pleaded to show complete diversity | Court: No diversity alleged; jurisdiction lacking |
| Federal-question jurisdiction | Complaint raises alleged harms but does not invoke federal law or Constitution | No claim arises under federal law; no federal statutory or constitutional basis pled | Court: No federal-question jurisdiction shown |
| Burden to plead jurisdiction / sua sponte review | Plaintiff proceeded in federal court without jurisdictional facts | Court must ensure jurisdiction exists and plaintiff must plead supporting facts | Court: Plaintiff failed to meet burden; court must dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980 (10th Cir. 2013) (party invoking federal jurisdiction must adequately show it exists)
- Evitt v. Durland, 243 F.3d 388 (10th Cir. 2000) (court has duty to address apparent lack of jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842 (10th Cir. 1988) (courts may raise jurisdictional defects on their own initiative)
- Symes v. Harris, 472 F.3d 754 (10th Cir. 2006) (complete diversity required for diversity jurisdiction)
- Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (dismissals for lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice)