Michael et al v. Davis, et al.

Filing 3

ORDER granting 2 Motion to Proceed IFP, signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/4/13. Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed; and Plaintiffs are granted 30 days from the date of service of this order to file an amended complaint. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL RIDDICK, ET AL.,

12
13

No. 2:13-cv-2304 KJM AC PS

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

14

ARNETT O. DAVIS, ET AL.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiffs have requested authority pursuant

18

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by

19

Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

20

Plaintiffs have submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiffs are

21

unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in

22

forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

23

The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the

24

action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

25

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

26

§ 1915(e)(2).

27
28

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all
civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “A case ‘arises
1

1

under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the vindication

2

of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.’” Republican

3

Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd.

4

v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1983)). The presence or absence of

5

federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” Caterpillar, Inc.

6

v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal

7

jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly

8

pleaded complaint.” Id. In this case, plaintiffs do not allege a violation of “the Constitution,

9

laws, or treaties of the United States.” Their only assertion of jurisdiction is based on the

10

defendants’ alleged fraudulent conduct associated with the sale of a business, but the mere

11

assertion of fraud, without more, is insufficient to meet the plaintiffs’ burden of establishing the

12

existence of federal question jurisdiction. See, e.g., Vacek v. United States Postal Service, 447

13

F.3d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction “rests

14

upon the party asserting jurisdiction”) (internal citation omitted).

15

Furthermore, the court finds that there is no diversity jurisdiction in this case. In the

16

complaint, plaintiffs assert that they are residents of Sacramento, California, and the defendants

17

are residents of Suisun, California. Additionally, plaintiffs seek $49,000 in damages. Pursuant to

18

28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity

19

cases “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the

20

matter is between “citizens of different states.” Since neither of these requirements is met here,

21

diversity jurisdiction is lacking. Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiffs will,

22

however, be granted leave to amend.

23

If plaintiffs choose to amend the complaint, plaintiffs must set forth the jurisdictional

24

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Further, plaintiff must

25

demonstrate how the conduct complained of has resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's federal

26

rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific

27

terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under § 1983 unless there

28

is some affirmative link between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v.
2

1

Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (9176); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v.

2

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

3

In addition, plaintiffs are informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order

4

to make plaintiffs’ amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

5

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a

6

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375

7

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiffs file an amended complaint, the original pleading no

8

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

9

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

10

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1. Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

12

2. Plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed; and

13

3 Plaintiffs are granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

14

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

15

and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned

16

this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiffs must file an original and two

17

copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

18

order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

19

DATED: December 4, 2013

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3