Will D Rogers Jr. v. Walmart, Inc et al

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 2 by Judge Christina A. Snyder. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees is denied, and the Complaint in this action is dismissed without prejudice. MD JS-6, Case Terminated. (lom)

1

O

2

JS-6

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILL D. ROGERS, JR.,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14
15
16

WALMART, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. CV 17-01280 CAS (AFMx)
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

17
18

On February 16, 2017, William D. Rogers, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), currently

19

incarcerated in Lincoln, Nebraska, filed a pro se Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to

20

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Walmart, Inc., Nancy L. and Ms. Amanda along with a

21

Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees and Declaration in Support.

22

Plaintiff claims that defendant Walmart, Inc. violated his rights by not investigating

23

a claim from an accident occurring on June 6, 2012 at a Walmart in Oxnard,

24

California. Defendant Nancy L. allegedly took him to the hospital after his accident

25

and conspired to file a claim on his behalf, on July 9, 2012.

26

Ms. Amanda (said to be a Walmart claim investigator) allegedly refused to verify

27

that Walmart entered into a settlement agreement or issued a settlement check and

28

failed to tell Plaintiff where the check was sent. Plaintiff requests that he be

Defendant

1

awarded compensation for pain and suffering, mental suffering and payment for

2

mental treatment care.

3

Section 1915(e)(2) pertains to any action by a litigant who is proceeding

4

in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See, e.g., Shirley v. University of Idaho, College of Law,

5

800 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and noting that a

6

“district court shall screen and dismiss an action filed by a plaintiff proceeding

7

in forma pauperis”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000)

8

(noting “section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints” and directing

9

“district courts to dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief

10

may be granted”) (en banc). Such screening is required before a litigant proceeding

11

IFP may proceed to serve a pleading. Glick v. Edwards, 803 F.3d 505, 507 (9th

12

Cir. 2015) (noting that “a preliminary screening” of a complaint filed by a litigant

13

seeking to proceed IFP is “required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)”), petition for cert.

14

filed, (Mar. 17, 2016); O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1152-53 (9th Cir. 2008)

15

(citing Lopez and discussing a district court’s “mandatory duty” to dismiss an IFP

16

complaint under the criteria of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)).

17

In addition, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject

18

matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress.

19

See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377

20

(1994).

21

jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), and the Court

22

may remand a case summarily if there is an obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf.

23

Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003)

24

(“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a court

25

contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for

26

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal citations).

It is this Court’s duty to always examine its own subject matter

27

First, it is clear from the face of the Complaint that there is no federal

28

question jurisdiction based on these allegations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim
2

1

arises under federal law “when a federal question is presented on the face of

2

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.

3

386, 392 (1987). Plaintiff’s Complaint herein contains a single cause of action.

4

(Compl. at 1.) There is no federal question presented on the face of Plaintiff’s

5

Complaint. Although the Complaint is submitted on a form for actions brought

6

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens, none of the allegations plausibly suggests a

7

claim based on an alleged deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under of

8

color state law or an alleged constitutional violation by federal official. See West v.

9

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S.

10

388 (1971). Nor is there any other federal question presented on the face of the

11

Complaint.

12

Second, with regard to possible diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332,

13

Plaintiff has not alleged citizenship of the parties and has not attempted to allege

14

that the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement is met here.

15

Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553-54 (2014). The

16

Complaint asserts a claim for monetary compensation for pain and suffering,

17

mental suffering and payment for mental treatment care of an unknown and unpled

18

amount. (Compl. p. 6.) In this regard, the Court notes that Plaintiff previously filed

19

a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, in

20

which he made similar allegations against Walmart and the claims manager

21

Amanda. (See William Rogers, Jr. v. Walmart Home Office and Amanda, Claims

22

Manager, 8:15-CV-00272 (D. Neb.). That case was dismissed by the district court

23

on January 4, 2016 (with reconsideration denied on March 16, 2016), based on

24

Plaintiff’s failure to show that the amount in controversy was greater than the

25

$75,000 jurisdictional amount.

26

///

27

///

28

///
3

See Dart

1

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the Request to Proceed Without

2

Prepayment of Filing Fees is denied, and the Complaint in this action is dismissed

3

without prejudice.

4
5

DATED: March 8, 2017

6
7
8

___
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4