Williams v. Wilson

Filing 4

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS for Dismissal of Plaintiff's 1 Action without Prejudice for lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 03/16/2013. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 4/22/2013. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

LAWRENCE D. WILLIAMS,

CASE No. 1:13-cv-0185-AWI-MJS (PC)

10
11

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR
DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
(ECF No. 1)
14

BOBBY GLENN WILSON,
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30)
DAYS

15
Defendant.

16

/

17
18
19

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

20
Plaintiff Lawrence D. Williams (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action by filing a pro se
21
22

Complaint on February 6, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s Complaint is before the Court for

23

screening.

24

I.

25
26

SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The in forma pauperis statute provides that “the court shall dismiss the case at any

time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon

27
-1-

1

which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint must contain “a

2

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .”

3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare

4
5

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,

6

do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

7

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)), and courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted

8

inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal

9

quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal

10

conclusion are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-679.

11
12

III.

SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail. Plaintiff names Bobby Glenn

13
14

Wilson as the sole defendant in this action.

15

Plaintiff’s allegations are as follows:

16

Plaintiff was arrested in October 2011 for assault. (Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff has been

17

incarcerated since then. (Id.) In October 2012, Plaintiff was informed by Citibank that

18
19

Defendant Wilson had withdrawn Plaintiff’s savings under false pretenses. (Compl. at 2.)

20

Defendant Wilson claimed he was hiring an attorney for Plaintiff and took Plaintiff’s Social

21

Security money from his savings account. (Id.) Plaintiff wishes to prosecute Defendant

22

Wilson for stealing his savings under false pretenses. (Compl. at 2.)

23

III.

24

ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
A.

Pleading Requirements Generally

25
26

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

27
-2-

1

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not

2

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

3

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) citing

4

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 1955 (2007). A plaintiff must set forth

5
6

“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’”

7

Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed

8

misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not.

9

Id. at 1949–50.

10

B.

11

No Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The district court is a court of limited jurisdiction and is not empowered to hear every

12
13

dispute filed by litigants. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546,

14

552 (2005); A–Z Int'l. v. Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003). The district court

15

“possess[es] only the power authorized by Constitution and statute,” and may only

16

adjudicate claims raising federal questions or involving parties with diverse citizenship.

17

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The federal

18

courts are “presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case, unless the contrary

19
affirmatively appears.” A–Z Int'l, 323 F.3d at 1145.
20
21

“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court

22

must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see Saini v. U.S. Citizenship and

23

Immigration Services, 553 F.Supp.2d. 1170, 1172 (E.D. Cal. 2008), citing Attorneys Trust

24

v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594–95 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[L]ack of

25

subject-matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by either party or the court

26
at any time”); see also Bernstein v. Universal Pictures, Inc., 517 F.2d 976, 979 (2d Cir.
27
-3-

1

1975) (“[L]ack of [subject-matter] jurisdiction is so fundamental a defect that [Fed. R. Civ.

2

P. 12(h)(3) ] permits a judge to recognize it sua sponte at any time”); Shamrock Oil & Gas

3

Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 109 (1941) (“[Federal courts are required] to scrupulously

4

confine their own jurisdiction to the precise limits which the statute has defined”); Kantor

5
6
7

v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd. 704 F.2d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 1983) (any doubt as to whether
jurisdiction exists is normally resolved against a finding of such jurisdiction.).
1.

8

Federal Question

9

Construing the allegations of the Complaint most favorably to the Plaintiff, Scheuer

10

v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974),1 it does not allege facts demonstrating federal

11

question jurisdiction arising under the United States Constitution, treaties, federal statutes,

12
administrative regulations or common law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff appears to be
13
14
15

alleging a claim under tort law. No federal or state involvement is either apparent or
alleged.

16

Plaintiff has not demonstrated federal question jurisdiction.

17

2.

18

Diversity

Construing the allegations of the Complaint most favorably to the Plaintiff, Scheuer,

19
416 U.S. at 236, Plaintiff fails to allege facts supporting diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §
20
21

1332. Diversity jurisdiction refers to federal court subject matter jurisdiction over claims

22

exceeding $75,000 between citizens of different states or citizens of a state and a foreign

23

state.

24
25
1

26

Abrogated on other grounds by Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).

27
-4-

The Defendant is not alleged to be diverse. Plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting

1
2

diversity as to the Defendant.

3
4

Plaintiff puts a total claim of $4,148.57 in controversy. This falls short of the
$75,000 jurisdictional threshold.

5

Plaintiff has not demonstrated federal diversity jurisdiction.

6
C.

7

No Supplemental Jurisdiction

8

The Court notes that, in the absence of federal subject matter jurisdiction, there is

9

no supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s alleged state law claims. Herman Family

10

Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 2001).

11

IV.

12

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Construing the allegations of the Complaint favorably to the Plaintiff, the claims

13
14

asserted do not demonstrate a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly,

15

the Court hereby RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack

16

of subject matter jurisdiction.

17

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District

18

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B–C)

19

and Rule 304 of the Local Rules for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

20
California.

Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and

21
22

Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on

23

all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

24

Findings and Recommendation.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed

25

within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to

26

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's

27
-5-

1

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated:
ci4d6

March 16, 2013

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-6-