Pingrey v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston

Filing 6

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/9/16 ORDERING within fourteen (14) days of entry of this order, Ms. Pingrey is ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court defers consideration of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis pending Ms. Pingrey's response to this order. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DONNA PINGREY,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:16-cv-00254-KJM-CKD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE
COMPANY OF BOSTON,
Defendant.

17
18
19
20

On February 9, 2016, Donna Pingrey filed a breach of contract claim in this court.
ECF No. 1. Ms. Pingrey also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2.
Before addressing Ms. Pingrey’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the court

21

must determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. See Owen Equipment

22

& Electric Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 371 (1978) (federal courts are courts of limited

23

jurisdiction and must have subject matter jurisdiction in order to decide a particular case). There

24

are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction

25

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. If Ms. Pingrey

26

does not establish subject matter jurisdiction, the court may dismiss the case sua sponte. See

27

Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

28
1

1

12(h)(3)4 provides that a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at

2

any time during the pendency of the action.”).

3

Ms. Pingrey’s complaint states claims arising under state law. See generally ECF

4

No. 1. Based on her claims, Ms. Pingrey cannot establish federal question jurisdiction. Before

5

the case can proceed in this court, she must establish diversity jurisdiction. In reviewing the

6

complaint, nothing satisfies the court that defendant and plaintiff are citizens of different states;

7

and that the amount in controversy is more than $75,000, as required for diversity jurisdiction.

8

Accordingly, Ms. Pingrey is ORDERED, within fourteen (14) days of entry of this

9

order, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

10

The court defers consideration of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis pending Ms. Pingrey’s

11

response to this order.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 9, 2016.

14
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2