Allen v. Burnside et al

Filing 3

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 5/10/2017 ORDERING that within twenty-one days of the date of this order plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEON ALLEN,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:17-cv-0602 KJM DB PS
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

NINA BURNSIDE dba Soul Legacy
Entertainment, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff, Leon Allen, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the

19

undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending

20

before the court is plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

21

U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Therein, plaintiff complains about an “interest in the real

22

property which is the subject matter of this action . . . 3801 Florin Rd., Sacramento, CA, 95823.”

23

(Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 4.)

24

The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma

25

pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir.

26

2000) (en banc). Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry that must precede the adjudication of any case

27

before the district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858

28

F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may
1

1

adjudicate only those cases authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511

2

U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37 (1992). “Federal courts are

3

presumed to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey

4

v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475

5

U.S. 534, 546 (1986)).

6

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time during the

7

proceedings. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir.

8

1996). A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] has

9

subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). It is the

10

obligation of the district court “to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.” Grupo Dataflux v.

11

Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004). Without jurisdiction, the district court

12

cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief. See Morongo, 858 F.2d at 1380.

13

The basic federal jurisdiction statutes are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, which confer

14

“federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal jurisdiction may also be

15

conferred by federal statutes regulating specific subject matter. “[T]he existence of federal

16

jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to

17

those claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d

18

1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000).

19

District courts have diversity jurisdiction only over “all civil actions where the matter in

20

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and the action

21

is between: “(1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a

22

foreign state; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are

23

additional parties; and (4) a foreign state . . . as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different

24

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “To demonstrate citizenship for diversity purposes a party must (a) be

25

a citizen of the United States, and (b) be domiciled in a state of the United States.” Lew v. Moss,

26

797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986). “Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between

27

the parties-each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” In re

28

Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litigation, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008).
2

1

Here, it appears that plaintiff’s complaint concerns only state law matters concerning real

2

property, and that all parties involved are citizens of California. In this regard, it appears that

3

neither “federal question” nor “diversity” jurisdiction is present in this action.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one days of the date of this

5

order plaintiff shall show cause in writing as to why this action should not be dismissed without

6

prejudice due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

7

DATED: May 10, 2017

/s/ DEBORAH BARNES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3