Hines v. Bank of America et al
Filing
3
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/7/16 ORDERING that Plaintiff's Request to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is GRANTED; IT IS RECOMMENDED that this Action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction re 1 Complaint. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez. Objections to these F&Rs due within fourteen days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LONNIE HINES,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:16-cv-0443 JAM CKD PS
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
BANK OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to
18
28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by
19
Local Rule 302(c)(21).
20
Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is unable
21
to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma
22
pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
23
In this action, plaintiff alleges claims arising out of the foreclosure of his home. The
24
complaint alleges diversity as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. In order to proceed under
25
diversity jurisdiction, all defendants must be diverse to plaintiff. Plaintiff specifically alleges that
26
defendant Countrywise Home Loans, Inc. has its principal place of business in the State of
27
California. See ECF No. 1 at p. 7. As such, the parties are not diverse and this action may not
28
proceed under diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). There being no other evident basis
1
1
2
3
4
5
for subject matter jurisdiction, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted; and
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
6
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
7
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
8
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
9
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
10
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
11
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.
12
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
13
Dated: March 7, 2016
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
4 hines0443.ifp.nosmj.57
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?