Machado v. Lizarraga
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/27/17, GRANTING Plaintiff's 2 request to proceed in forma pauperis. No later than 12/8/2017, plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Kastilahn, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:17-cv-02430 TLN CKD (PS)
J. A. LIZARRAGA,
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by
Local Rule 302(c)(21).
Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is unable
to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma
pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the
action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
Plaintiff purports to bring federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant,
the Warden of Mule Creek State Prison, where plaintiff’s husband is an inmate. The claims are
based on a prison disciplinary conviction against plaintiff’s husband for Distribution of a
Controlled Substance, and the barring of plaintiff from future visits due to her suspected
involvement in the distribution scheme. Plaintiff alleges that prison officials’ statements against
her are defamatory and libelous and that she has been subject to unlawful retaliation.
Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a federal claim against defendant. Among other
reasons, plaintiff has failed to allege a causal connection between the actions of defendant and
any constitutional violation. Moreover, plaintiff lacks standing to challenge her husband’s prison
disciplinary conviction. Although the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law
claims, plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. §
The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. In the absence of a basis for federal
jurisdiction, plaintiff’s claims cannot proceed in this venue. Because there is no basis for federal
subject matter jurisdiction evident in the complaint, plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why
this action should not be dismissed. Failure to allege a proper basis for subject matter jurisdiction
will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted;
2. No later than December 8, 2017, plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not
be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Dated: November 27, 2017
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?