Martinez v. Borja

Filing 3

ORDER DIRECTING Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file a written response within 14 days of this Order. Failure to file a response will be considered an admission that the jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by amendment to the Complaint. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 12/4/2017. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GABRIEL MARTINEZ,

11
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

vs.
DIANA BORJA,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01594-LJO-EPG
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
(ECF No. 1)
RESPONSE, IF ANY, TO BE FILED IN
WRITING WITHIN 14 DAYS

16
17

Plaintiff Gabriel Martinez, appearing pro se, filed a Complaint on November 30, 2017.

18

(ECF No. 1). From the Court’s initial review of the Complaint, it appears that the Court lacks

19

subject matter jurisdiction to consider the claims.

20

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject

21

matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases which the United States

22

Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,

23

511 U.S. 375 (1994). To proceed in federal court, a plaintiff’s pleading must establish the

24
25
26
27
28

existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Generally, there are two potential bases for federal
subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction, or (2) diversity jurisdiction.
“[A] case ‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action
or ‘where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of
federal law.’” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir.
1

1

2002), quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9

2

(1983). The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-

3

pleaded complaint rule.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under the

4

well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is

5

presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Id.

6

Here, the Complaint does not appear to contain any allegation of a violation arising

7

under the Constitution, federal law, or treaties of the United States. Plaintiff’s claims are state

8

claims and do not invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction. Kaohi v. Kaiser Found. Health

9
10
11
12
13
14

Plan, Inc., Case No. 15-00266 SOM/RLP, 2015 WL 6472231, at *5 (D. Haw. Oct. 27, 2015)
(remanding medical malpractice claims to state court).
Alternatively, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have original jurisdiction
over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value
of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
“Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires that no defendant have
the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env't, 236 F.3d

15
495, 499 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam), abrogated on other grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend,
16
17
18
19
20
21

559 U.S. 77, 130 S.Ct. 1181 (2010), citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “A plaintiff suing in federal
court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is
essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court . . . on discovering the
[defect], must dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.” Id., quoting
Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456 (1926).
As an initial matter, Plaintiff do not make any allegation that diversity jurisdiction

22

exists. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-858 (9th Cir. 2001) (“the party

23

asserting diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proof.”).

24

Accordingly, it appears that the Court would lack subject matter jurisdiction over the

25

claims in the Complaint. It appears that the claims are more properly suited for filing in the

26

state court system (courts of general jurisdiction). Thus, Plaintiff may elect to file a notice of

27

dismissal of this action instead of filing a response to this Order.

28
2

1

Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be

2

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file a written response within 14

3

days of this Order. Failure to file a response will be considered an admission that the

4

jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by amendment to the Complaint.

5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7

Dated:

December 4, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3