Sharp et al v. Howard et al

Filing 4

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/7/17 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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. Matter REFERRED to District Judge Troy L. Nunley. (Kastilahn, A) Modified on 3/7/2017 (Kastilahn, A).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CALYSTA SHARP, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. 2:17-0254 TLN CKD PS

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAS HOWARD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
In this action, plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, allege diversity and federal question as bases

17
18

for subject matter jurisdiction in this court. However, plaintiffs cite no federal statute or

19

constitutional provision which can serve as the basis of federal question jurisdiction and the

20

complaint does not set forth the amount in controversy for assessing the propriety of diversity

21

jurisdiction. Plaintiffs were accordingly ordered to show cause why this action should not be

22

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs have not filed a response to the order to show cause. There appears to be no

23
24

federal question subject matter jurisdiction. It also appears that diversity jurisdiction is lacking

25

because no amount in controversy is evident in the complaint.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of

26
27

subject matter jurisdiction.

28

////
1

1

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

2

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

3

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

4

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

5

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

6

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

7

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

8

Dated: March 7, 2017

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11

4 sharp0254.nosmj.57

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2