Leon Sanders v. James D. Walker et al

Filing 8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, specifically in regard to the alleged violation of civil rights in the tenth causeof action. Plaintiff must respond by September 20, 2016 by 4:00 p.m. (rfi)

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-06776 BRO (RAOx)

Title

LEON SANDERS V. JAMES D. WALKER ET AL.

Date

September 15, 2016

Present: The Honorable

BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United States District Judge

Renee A. Fisher

Not Present

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
A federal court must determine that subject matter jurisdiction exists even where
the parties do not raise the issue. Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir.
1996). Because federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, they possess original
jurisdiction only as authorized by the Constitution and federal statutes. See Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
federal courts have jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws,
or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case “arises under” federal law if a
plaintiff’s “well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of
action” or that the plaintiff’s “right to relief under state law requires resolution of a
substantial question of federal law in dispute between the parties.” Franchise Tax Bd. v.
Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983).
Original jurisdiction may also be established pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which
provides that a federal district court has jurisdiction over a civil action between citizens
of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the diversity statute to require
“complete diversity of citizenship,” meaning that each plaintiff must be diverse from
each defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 67–68 (1996). Additionally, “a
private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution
of another.” Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 85–86 (1981) (citing Linda R.S. v.
Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973)).
Causes of action one through nine appear to be pleaded under state law. (See
Verified Complaint (“Compl.”) at 3–10.) But in his tenth cause of action, Plaintiff
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-06776 BRO (RAOx)

Title

LEON SANDERS V. JAMES D. WALKER ET AL.

Date

September 15, 2016

alleges: “Civil Rights Violations by Reginald Sylvester, Lokman Reality [sic] Group
attorney Tiffany J. Ramirez: North American Title Company:For [sic] opening escrow
for Reginald Sylvester and closing escrow on property he didn’t own. This is a crime::
[sic]” (Compl. at 12.) Beyond this allegation, Plaintiff establishes an amount in
controversy in excess of $75,000. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that both he and named
defendants Walker, White, and Allen are residents of the state of California. (Id. at 1.)
Plaintiff makes no allegation as to the remaining defendants’ residences. (Id.)
Based on the alleged facts, it appears that Plaintiff errantly attempts to privately
prosecute an alleged crime. Further, it appears that complete diversity does not exist
between the parties. And on the facts alleged, the Court is unable to determine whether it
has federal question jurisdiction over the case. The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff to
show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, specifically in regard to the alleged violation of civil rights in the tenth cause
of action. Plaintiff must respond by September 20, 2016 by 4:00 p.m.
:

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

rf

Page 2 of 2