U.S. District Court For Primarily State Law Issue

RPS2018

New Member
Jurisdiction
Hawaii
Hello.
I am born and raised in Massachusetts and have lived in Hawaii about ten years.
I wish to sue rich land owners who are blocking a historic trail. By state law, the historic trail is state property, public property. It seems likely the state has been bribed by rich land owners to let them build fences and use security to keep public off public trail. One of the land owners is Mr. Facebook.

One federal question is involved in the issue. 42 USC 1983, violation of due process of law. State has failed to assert ownership of the trail, although they have issued multiple letters saying they own trail. However state has done nothing about trail being blocked by private parties (public nuisance). State has failed to uphold state public trust duty by failing to resolve its ownership of trail and provide perpetual public access to it.

Can I sue in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts if I obtain a summer seasonal job there? That way I would be suing based upon both a federal question AND diversity of citizenship. Can a suit to force land owners in Hawaii and the Hawaii state government to resolve trail issue in favor of public be argued from Boston? What about a site visit to see trail? Is it required? I would like to hear from attorneys with extensive federal court experience. I do not have money (that is why I need a summer job), but a suit against Mr. Facebook might yield a nice settlement or attorneys fees/expenses. Thanks for replies.
 
Everyone needs a dream....
 
I won't comment on the merits of your effort, but I would just ask what is your interest in the matter? Are you just average Joe resident who wants to walk a trail and can't pass?

If you hope to do anything in federal court you should do it in Hawaii.
 
I wish to sue rich land owners who are blocking a historic trail.

I assume the trail in question is located in Hawaii, correct?

It seems likely the state has been bribed by rich land owners

I assume this is nothing but rank speculation on your part.

Can I sue in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts if I obtain a summer seasonal job there?

I'm not sure what would make you think you having a "summer seasonal job" has anything to do with anything. The answer to the question is that you could file a complaint in D. Mass., but your complaint would be quickly dismissed for being filed in an improper venue.

That way I would be suing based upon both a federal question AND diversity of citizenship.

This comment is a great example of the concept that a little knowledge can be dangerous. You apparently have read some terms but clearly have no real understanding of them.

Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. That means they have authority to hear only those types of cases permitted in the Constitution and as authorized by statute. Article III of the Constitution explains that federal courts may hear cases "arising under this Constitution [and] the laws of the United States" (i.e., federal question) and cases "between citizens of different states" (i.e., diversity of citizenship).

The diversity jurisdiction of federal courts is further circumscribed in section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code. Among other things, section 1332 requires that the amount in controversy in a diversity case must exceed $75,000. By contrast, no amount in controversy requirement exists for federal question cases. Since you indicated you believe you can state a federal claim, your concern with being in Massachusetts makes no sense at all.

You wrote that you have lived in Hawaii for about 10 years. It is therefore safe to assume that, for diversity purposes, you are a citizen of the State of Hawaii. Obtaining a "seasonal summer job" in another state would not change your citizenship. In order to change your citizenship, you need to move with the intent of remaining permanently.

You'll note that I've only been talking about jurisdiction, which is a different concept than venue. Venue in federal district courts is governed by section 1391, et seq. of Title 28. In particular, section 1391(b) focuses on the location where some or all defendants reside or where the facts giving rise to the case occurred. You'll note that the residence of the plaintiff is largely irrelevant.

Can a suit to force land owners in Hawaii and the Hawaii state government to resolve trail issue in favor of public be argued from Boston?

In theory, it could be. However, there's no apparently legal basis to file your proposed case anywhere other than the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. Even if you could convince the court that venue ought to be changed for some reason (highly unlikely), it would most likely move to a district court in California, Oregon or Washington.

I do not have money

So how would you handle all of the interstate flights that your scheme would require?

By the way, you should read the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Then, if you really want to pursue this, start calling some lawyers in Hawaii.
 
Back
Top