Cameron Jon Craven v. Department of Revenue Collection et al

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Judge John F. Walter, Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (se)

PRIORITY SEND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-6753-JFW (JCx)

Title:

Cameron Jon Craven -v- Department of Revenue Collection, et al.

Date: November 18, 2011

PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None

ORDER ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

On August 16, 2011, Petitioner Cameron Jon Craven (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of
Mandamus (“Petition”) against the Department of Revenue Collection and the County of
Sacramento.
Plaintiff has not adequately alleged the facts essential for the subject matter jurisdiction of
this Court. Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Environment, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir.
2001) (quoting Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459 (1926)) (“‘A plaintiff suing in a federal court
must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to
federal jurisdiction . . . .’”).
In his Petition and Statement of Jurisdiction, Petitioner alleges that this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the All Writs Act. However, the All Writs Act does
not confer jurisdiction on the federal courts. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S.
28, 32 (2002). In his Statement of Jurisdiction, Petitioner alleges that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3231. However, no such statute exists. Petitioner also alleges
in his Statement of Jurisdiction that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. However, that statute vests the court of appeals with “jurisdiction of appeals from all final
decisions of the district courts of the United States,” and, thus, cannot serve as a basis for subject
matter jurisdiction in this Court.
The Court also finds that, pursuant to Rule 12(e), Petitioner’s Petition is “so vague and
ambiguous” that the defendants will not be able to “reasonably prepare a response.” Rule 12(e).
As the court in Anderson v. District Board of Trustees of Central Florida Community College, 77
F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996), found “[e]xperience teaches that, unless cases are pled clearly and
precisely, issues are not joined, discovery is not controlled, the trial court’s docket becomes
Page 1 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

unmanageable, the litigants suffer, and society loses confidence in the court’s ability to administer
justice.”
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) specifically states that “[i]f the court determines at
any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), “a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction,
sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action, even on appeal.” Snell v. Cleveland,
Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Emerich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190,
1194 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that "[i]t is elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction of the
district court is not a waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by
motion or in the responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court").
Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr