Cordova v. Blockbuster Video Corp. , 315 F. App'x 729 ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 4, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
CHRISTOPHER A. CORDOVA,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 08-1374
v. (D. Colorado)
BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO CORP.; (D.C. No. 1:08-CV-01664-ZLW)
JANE DOE, Witness,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HARTZ, McKAY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Cordova brought suit pro se in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado against Blockbuster Video and an unnamed witness
whom he blames for wrongly identifying him as a participant in a video-store
theft. He alleged that as a result of the misidentification, Denver police officers
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
came to his apartment and questioned him, causing him severe emotional distress,
anxiety, and panic attacks.
The district court read Mr. Cordova’s complaint to allege a civil-rights
violation and ordered him to amend it to conform to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a), which requires, among other things, a statement of the basis for
the court’s jurisdiction. Mr. Cordova’s amended complaint failed to do so.
Notably, it did not allege that any defendant was a state actor who could be sued
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the court dismissed the suit for failure to
state a basis for federal jurisdiction.
We affirm the district court’s dismissal. “Federal courts have an
independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists.”
1mage Software, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 459 F.3d 1044, 1048 (10th Cir.
2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither version of Mr. Cordova’s
complaint invoked federal diversity jurisdiction. Nor does either suggest federal-
question jurisdiction, which requires that the claim present a “substantial” federal
question. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537 (1974). A question “may be
plainly unsubstantial . . . because it is obviously without merit.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). Mr. Cordova’s claim fails to raise a substantial federal
question because it does not allege that either defendant acted under color of state
law, a fundamental requirement for a § 1983 claim. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446
-2-
U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Given this failure, the district court plainly lacked
jurisdiction over the claim.
We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Cordova’s suit. We
DENY Mr. Cordova’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-3-