Blank v. Sacramento Public Library
Filing
5
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/09/16 ORDERING that the 2 4 Motions to Proceed IFP are GRANTED; and RECOMMENDING that this action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections to these F&Rs within 14 days. (Benson, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PAUL LOUIS BLANK,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:16-cv-2578 GEB GGH
Plaintiff,
ORDER and
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
v.
SACRAMENTO PUBLIC LIBRARY,
Defendant.
16
17
18
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his complaint in pro se on October 28, 2016, ECF No. 1, and moved for in
19
forma pauperis (“IFP”) status on the same date. ECF No. 2. On November 2, 2016 the
20
undersigned, which has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1) and
21
Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21), issued an order directing Plaintiff to refile
22
his Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis within 14 days and an Amended Complaint within 30
23
days. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff’s Complaint related to the Sacramento Public Library having
24
excluding him from its premises for various identified reasons.
25
In its November 2, 2016 Order the court explained to plaintiff that he had alleged no
26
federal claims in his Complaint which he purported to bring pursuant to Title VI, codified at 42
27
U.S.C. § 2000d, and what the required allegations were to proceed under that statute. Id. at 3:5-
28
14. The court further explained the requirements for proper pleadings under the Federal Rules of
1
1
Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this District. Id. at 2:3-3:3. Finally, the undersigned gave
2
notice that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Order may result in a recommendation that the
3
action be dismissed. Id. at 3:22-23.
4
5
Plaintiff filed a new Motion for IFP Status on November 14, 2016, ECF No. 4, but has not
filed an Amended Complaint.
6
7
8
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has made the showing required showing to qualify for IFP status. Accordingly
the court will GRANT his motion.
9
Plaintiff has not, however, complied with the portion of the court’s order to file an
10
Amended Complaint within 30 days of the order, or by December 2, 2012. This does not,
11
however, resolve the issue of whether plaintiff may proceed with his action.
12
This court has been unable to determine a jurisdictional basis for plaintiff’s claims to
13
remain in this court. A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only
14
those cases authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
15
Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1 provides that the judicial power of the
16
United States is vested in the Supreme Court, “and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may
17
from time to time ordain and establish.” Congress therefore confers jurisdiction upon federal
18
district courts, as limited by U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S.
19
689, 697-99 (1992). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party
20
or by the court. See Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95
21
(9th Cir. 1996).
22
The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal
23
question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Statutes which regulate specific subject
24
matter may also confer federal jurisdiction. See generally, W.W. Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J.
25
Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 2:5. Unless a complaint presents a plausible
26
assertion of a substantial federal right, a federal court does not have jurisdiction. See Bell v.
27
Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1945).
28
2
1
In order to claim jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 plaintiff must, as threshold matter,
2
establish that his state citizenship, California, and defendant’s state citizenship are diverse. The
3
defendant, the Sacramento Public Library, is clearly a California entity. Thus there is no diversity
4
jurisdiction in this case. Under § 1331 plaintiff must plead a federal statute or Constitutional
5
provision to continue under federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff pleaded violations of Title VI
6
in his original Complaint and this court explained the elements that must be shown to gain
7
jurisdiction under this statute, none of which elements were satisfied by the plaintiff’s complaint.
8
9
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for lack of
jurisdiction.
10
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
11
The Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction;
12
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
13
assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14)
14
days of being served with these findings and recommendations Plaintiff may file written
15
objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
16
Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within
17
the specified time may waive his right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951
18
F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
19
Dated: December 9, 2016
20
21
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?