Kilpatrick v. WFRPSN
Filing
3
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/6/15 RECOMMENDING that the action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's 2 motion to proceed in forma pau peris in this court be denied as moot. The Clerk be directed to close this case. It is ORDERED that all pleading, discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of these findings and recommendations. Matter referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ELSINA KILPATRICK,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-2233-GEB-KJN PS
v.
ORDER AND
WFRPSN,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
15
16
Defendant.
17
Plaintiff Elsina Kilpatrick, who proceeds in this action without counsel, has requested
18
19
leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.)1 Pursuant to 28
20
U.S.C. § 1915, the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if it determines that the
21
allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on
22
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.
For the reasons discussed below, the court concludes that it lacks federal subject matter
23
24
jurisdiction over this action. As such, the court recommends that the action be dismissed without
25
prejudice, and that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis in this court be denied as
26
moot.
27
28
1
This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
1
1
A federal court has an independent duty to assess whether federal subject matter
2
jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v.
3
Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had a duty
4
to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties
5
raised the issue or not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996).
6
The court must sua sponte dismiss the case if, at any time, it determines that it lacks subject
7
matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A federal district court generally has original
8
jurisdiction over a civil action when: (1) a federal question is presented in an action “arising
9
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” or (2) there is complete diversity of
10
citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).
11
Here, plaintiff’s complaint alleges that defendant West Florin Representative Payee
12
Service & Nordhus, an entity that apparently disburses social benefits and other income for
13
individuals deemed incapable of managing their own resources, abused its power in managing
14
plaintiff’s funds by allowing plaintiff’s in-home support services (“IHSS”) worker to receive a
15
monthly check from plaintiff’s funds despite the IHSS worker already being paid by the State of
16
California. Plaintiff contends that she was taken advantage of, and that defendant’s actions
17
constituted fraud and violated “trust law.” It is unclear specifically what relief plaintiff seeks,
18
although it can be presumed that she seeks, at a minimum, recovery of any amounts alleged to
19
have been improperly paid to the IHSS worker. (See generally Complaint, ECF No. 1.)
20
Regardless of the merits of plaintiff’s claims, on which the court expresses no opinion, the
21
court plainly lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. There is no federal question
22
jurisdiction, because plaintiff’s complaint fails to assert any federal claims; nor does it appear
23
plausible that plaintiff could do so in this factual context. Additionally, because plaintiff and
24
defendant are both citizens of California, there is no diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
25
Therefore, the court recommends that the action be dismissed for lack of subject matter
26
jurisdiction. However, such dismissal should be without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to pursue
27
any potential state law claims she may have in state court. The court expresses no opinion
28
regarding the merits of any such potential state law claims.
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
2
1. The action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
3
2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court (ECF No. 2) be denied as
4
moot.
5
3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
6
In light of these recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading,
7
discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of these findings and
8
recommendations. Other than objections to the findings and recommendations or non-frivolous
9
motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any pleadings or other
10
filings until the findings and recommendations are resolved.
11
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
12
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)
13
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
14
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
15
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
16
shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the
17
objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
18
waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th
19
Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.
Dated: November 6, 2015
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?