Levi v. State of Alaska

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
STEVEN C. LEVI,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF ALASKA,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:18-cv-00282-RRB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On December 6, 2018, self-represented litigant Steven C. Levi filed a
“Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983” along with the $400.00
filing fee.1 Mr. Levi included a copy of Alaska Supreme Court Opinion S-16876 as
an exhibit with his complaint.2
In his complaint, Mr. Levi alleges that the State of Alaska, Department of
Labor has “violated my rights, and I seek injunctive relief.”3 	Mr. Levi begins his
complaint by explaining the procedural history of his dispute with the Department
of Labor and the subsequent appeals decisions from the Superior Court of Alaska
and the Alaska Supreme Court.4 Then, Mr. Levi breaks down the Alaska Supreme
1 Docket 1.
2 Docket 1-1.
3 Docket 1 at 1.
4 Docket 1 at 1-2.
Case 3:18-cv-00282-RRB Document 2 Filed 03/18/19 Page 1 of 12

3:18-cv-282-RRB, Levi v. State of Alaska.
Order to Dismiss
Page 2 of 12
Court’s 	decision 	into 	specific 	sections 	with 	which 	he 	disagrees.5 	Mr. 	Levi
disagrees with the Alaska Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Unemployment
Manual and a state statute and three alleged “facts” he believes the Alaska
Supreme Court ignored.6 Mr. Levi alleges that he filed a motion for a jury trial, and
did not receive a grant or a denial, but instead that he “was simply found guilty by
the Superior Court.”7 	Mr. Levi alleges that his unemployment dispute is not an
administrative appeal, and therefore, his right to a jury trial has been violated.
For relief, Mr. Levi requests that “this Court dismiss all charges against the
Plaintiff with Prejudice.”8
SCREENING STANDARD
The United States Supreme Court has established that “the federal courts
are under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction[.]”9 	In a
federal court proceeding, a jurisdictional defect may be raised at any time.10
5 Docket 1 at 3-7.
6 Docket 1 at 3-4.
7 Docket 1 at 5.
8 Docket 1 at 6.
9 United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995).
10 Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2013).
Case 3:18-cv-00282-RRB Document 2 Filed 03/18/19 Page 2 of 12

3:18-cv-282-RRB, Levi v. State of Alaska.
Order to Dismiss
Page 3 of 12
DISCUSSION
Mr. Levi alleges that the State of Alaska violated his civil rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, because Alaska’s Department of Labor has ordered he refund the
Department due to a prior overpayment of unemployment benefits. 	Mr. Levi has
appealed this decision through the Alaska court system and now brings his claim
to federal court. 	Mr. Levi does not present a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and this Court has no jurisdiction to hear his case. 	Under these facts, no
other defendant may be substituted and therefore amendment is futile. 	Therefore,
Mr. Levi’s action must be dismissed.
42 U.S.C. § 1983
42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a federal statute that “is not itself a source of substantive
rights,” but provides “a method for vindicating rights [found] elsewhere.”11 To state
a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must “plead that (1) defendants
acting under color of state law (2) deprived plaintiff of rights secured by the federal
Constitution or federal statutes.”12 	To act under color of state law, a complaint
must allege that the defendants acted with state authority as state actors.13 To be
11 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S.
137, 144 n.3 (1979)).
12 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986).
13 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299,
326 (1941)).
Case 3:18-cv-00282-RRB Document 2 Filed 03/18/19 Page 3 of 12

3:18-cv-282-RRB, Levi v. State of Alaska.
Order to Dismiss
Page 4 of 12
deprived of a right, the defendant’s action needs to either violate rights guaranteed
by the Constitution or an enforceable right created by federal law.14 	Critically, a
plaintiff must establish a causal link between the state action and the alleged
violation of his rights.15 	These essential elements must be pleaded in a § 1983
claim.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 also requires that a defendant must be “acting under the
color of state law”.16 	This essential element of the statute limits who may be a
proper defendant under § 1983 litigation. 	For instance, private citizens, state
governmental agencies, and states are not proper defendants for a § 1983
action.17 	The 	question 	of 	whether 	a 	person 	who 	has 	allegedly 	caused 	a
constitutional 	injury 	was 	acting 	under 	the 	color 	of 	state 	law 	is 	a 	factual
determination.18 A defendant has acted under color of state law where he or she
has “exercised power ‘possessed by the virtue of state law and made possible only
because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.’”19
14 Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F. 3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995); Blessing v. Freestone,
520 U.S. 329, 340-41 (1997).
15 Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. Of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)).
16 West, 487 U.S. at 49.
17 See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Flint v. Dennison,488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th Cir. 2007); Hale v.
Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc).
18 See Brunette v. Humane Soc’y of Ventura Cty., 294 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 2002).
19 West, 487 U.S. at 49 (quoting Classic, 313 U.S. at 326); see also Tongol v. Usery, 601
Case 3:18-cv-00282-RRB Document 2 Filed 03/18/19 Page 4 of 12

3:18-cv-282-RRB, Levi v. State of Alaska.
Order to Dismiss
Page 5 of 12
42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not confer constitutional or federal rights, but instead,
provides a mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing constitutional or
federal rights.20 Constitutional rights are those conferred by the U.S. Constitution
to individual citizens. Section 1983 can be used as a mechanism for enforcing the
rights guaranteed by a particular federal statute only if (1) the statute creates
enforceable rights and (2) Congress has not foreclosed the possibility of a § 1983
remedy for violations of the statute in question.21 	Section 1983 does not provide
a cause of action for violations of state law.22 However, where a violation of state
law is also a violation of a federal constitutional right, § 1983 may provide a cause
of action.23
Importantly in a §1983 action, claims must demonstrate causation, or show
how the alleged defendant, acting under color of state law, violated the plaintiff’s
federal rights. 	A person deprives another of a federal constitutional or statutory
right, “within the meaning of § 1983, ‘if he does an affirmative act, participates in
another’s affirmative act, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to
F.2d 1091, 1097 (establishing that when state officials are administering a federal funded
program, the state officials are still acting under the color of state law).
20 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
21 Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340-41 (1997); Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d
1020, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 1999).
22 Galen v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 662 (9th Cir. 2007).
23 Lovell v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 90 F.3d 367, 370 (9th Cir. 1996).
Case 3:18-cv-00282-RRB Document 2 Filed 03/18/19 Page 5 of 12

3:18-cv-282-RRB, Levi v. State of Alaska.
Order to Dismiss
Page 6 of 12
do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.’”24 The required causal
connection “may be established when an official sets in motion a ‘series of acts by
others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to
inflict’ constitutional harms.”25
Mr. Levi’s complaint does not allege the required elements of a § 1983 action.
Mr. Levi’s complaint does not allege wrong doing by a state actor. 	Instead, he
names the State of Alaska and later elaborates to specify the Department of Labor.
Neither a state, nor a state agency, is a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Additionally, Mr. Levi implies that his right to a jury trial has been infringed.
However, the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution only applies
to federal actions and has not been extended to the states.26 	As previously
discussed, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not an independent source of civil rights but is
merely a mechanism to enforce pre-existing rights.
In sum, in order to plead a proper § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege
plausible facts that if proven would establish each of the required elements of:
“(1) a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute,
24 Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. Of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)).
25 Preschooler II, 479 F.3d at 1183 (quoting Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743).
26 Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916) (establishing that “the
Seventh Amendment applies only to proceedings in courts of the United States, and does
not in any manner whatever govern or regulate trials by jury in state courts, or the
standards which must be applied concerning the same.”).
Case 3:18-cv-00282-RRB Document 2 Filed 03/18/19 Page 6 of 12

3:18-cv-282-RRB, Levi v. State of Alaska.
Order to Dismiss
Page 7 of 12
(2) proximately caused (3) by conduct of a ‘person’ (4) acting under color of state
law.”27 	Mr. 	Levi’s 	complaint 	does 	not 	demonstrate 	a 	violation 	of 	either
constitutional rights or federal statute because of conduct by a person acting under
the color of state law. Without these required elements, Mr. Levi’s complaint does
not present a valid civil rights claim and is deficient. No other defendant could be
substituted; therefore amendment is futile and the complaint must be dismissed.
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is “[a] court's power to decide a case or issue a decree.”28 	A
court’s 	subject 	matter 	jurisdiction 	is 	its 	“statutory 	or 	constitutional 	power 	to
adjudicate a case.”29 	As a federal court, this Court has limited subject matter
jurisdiction. 	It possesses “only that power authorized by the Constitution and
statute.”30 This means that the Court has the authority to hear only specified types
of cases.31 	“In civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction is generally conferred upon
27 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Pistor v. Garcia,
791 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir. 2015).
28 Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) (definition of “jurisdiction”).
29 Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998).
30 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).
31 	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).
Case 3:18-cv-00282-RRB Document 2 Filed 03/18/19 Page 7 of 12

3:18-cv-282-RRB, Levi v. State of Alaska.
Order to Dismiss
Page 8 of 12
federal district courts either through diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or
federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”32
Federal 	question 	jurisdiction 	provides 	a 	federal 	court 	the 	authority 	to
consider cases brought under the United States Constitution or federal statutes.33
The complaint does not address a federal statute or raise a viable constitutional
issue.34 	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
$75,000.35 	This means that this Court could have jurisdiction over a case
(Including one involving only state law issues) where the plaintiff demonstrates that
he is a citizen of a different state than the citizenship of each of the defendants.36
However, if any of the defendants share citizenship with Mr. Levi, then no diversity
32 Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005).
33 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
34 See Docket 1.
35 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”)).
36 Id. (quoting Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377).
Case 3:18-cv-00282-RRB Document 2 Filed 03/18/19 Page 8 of 12

3:18-cv-282-RRB, Levi v. State of Alaska.
Order to Dismiss
Page 9 of 12
jurisdiction exists.37 	While Mr. Levi does not formally establish citizenship, the
pleadings indicate that Mr. Levi and his defendant, the State of Alaska, are Alaska
citizens.38 	Additionally, neither the complaint, nor the cover sheet establish an
amount in controversy. 	Because he has not demonstrated diverse citizenship
here, nor an amount in controversy, this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction
over his complaint.
This Court 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.”39 In light of the foregoing, Mr. Levi’s complaint must be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
No Appellate Jurisdiction
Mr. Levi’s complaint presents arguments against the Alaska Supreme Court
decision S-16876. 	Mr. Levi extensively quotes the decision, alleges errors, and
even provides the Court a copy of the opinion as an exhibit.40 Effectively, Mr. Levi
37 Id.
38 See Docket 1.
39 Fed. R. Civ. P. (12)(h)(3).
40 Dockets 1 at 3-7 & 1-1.
Case 3:18-cv-00282-RRB Document 2 Filed 03/18/19 Page 9 of 12

3:18-cv-282-RRB, Levi v. State of Alaska.
Order to Dismiss
Page 10 of 12
requests that this Court review and correct errors he believes exists with the Alaska
Supreme Court’s interpretation of Alaska state law.41
A federal district court has no appellate jurisdiction of state courts.42 	Only
the United States Supreme Court has the authority to review a state court’s
judgment.43 	The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “does not authorize district courts to
exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments.”44 	As established by
the United States Supreme Court, Rooker-Feldman “is a narrow doctrine, confined
to ‘cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-
court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and
inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.’”45 	“The doctrine
applies only in ‘limited circumstances,’ where a party in effects seeks to take an
appeal of an unfavorable state-court decision to a lower federal court.”46
Mr. Levi has been litigating this issue through the entirety of the Alaska
administrative process, and then, Alaska’s court system. 	Mr. Levi has received a
41 See Docket 10.
42 Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals
v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (establishing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine that federal
district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a state court).
43 28 U.S.C. § 1257.
44 Verizon Md. Inc., v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 644 n. 3 (2002).
45 Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 464 (2006) (per curium); quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005).
46 Lance, 546 U.S. at 466; quoting Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 291.
Case 3:18-cv-00282-RRB Document 2 Filed 03/18/19 Page 10 of 12

3:18-cv-282-RRB, Levi v. State of Alaska.
Order to Dismiss
Page 11 of 12
Department of Labor appeal, a Superior Court appeal, and an Alaska Supreme
Court appeal. 	Mr. Levi now seeks to bring his case to federal court in order to
challenge the prior state court judgment. 	However, this Court has no such
appellate jurisdiction; therefore, this action must be dismissed.
Futility of Amendment
A 	Court’s 	decision 	to 	grant 	or 	deny 	leave 	to 	amend 	a 	complaint 	is
discretionary.47 Mr. Levi does not present a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
that can be repaired. 	No defendant or other party could be substituted on these
facts. 	Additionally, the constitutional violation he raises does not apply to the
states. Without a proper federal question cause of action, this Court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the action. Moreover, a federal district
court does not have the authority or jurisdiction to review state court decisions.
Therefore, amendment is futile, and the action must be dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, and futility of amendment.
47 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (establishing that leave to amend a
complaint should be freely given unless to do so would be futile); see also Cato v.
United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (stating that “[a] district court should
not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that
the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”).
Case 3:18-cv-00282-RRB Document 2 Filed 03/18/19 Page 11 of 12

3:18-cv-282-RRB, Levi v. State of Alaska.
Order to Dismiss
Page 12 of 12
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to submit a final judgment accordingly.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska this 18th day of March, 2019.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
Senior United States District Judge
Case 3:18-cv-00282-RRB Document 2 Filed 03/18/19 Page 12 of 12