Young v. North American Van Lines, Inc.

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 2/7/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 TERRA S. YOUNG, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 No. C 12-00257 JSW Plaintiff, v. NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Defendant. 14 / 15 16 The Court has received Plaintiff’s complaint and application to proceed in forma 17 pauperis, filed in this Court on January 17, 2012. The Court may authorize a plaintiff to file an 18 action in federal court without prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit 19 showing that he or she is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 20 The in forma pauperis statute also provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if at any time 21 the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action (1) is frivolous or 22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 23 against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 24 The facts currently alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint fail to set forth a RICO violation. 18 25 U.S.C. § 1964(a) provides the Court with jurisdiction to remedy violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962. 26 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) provides that “any person injured in his business or property by reason of a 27 violation of [18 U.S.C. § 1962] may sue therefore in any United States district court ... .” 28 Plaintiff sets forth no facts stating how her business or property was injured by virtue of a 1 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, nor does the Complaint set forth facts from which this Court can 2 discern the nature of the RICO enterprise alleged nor which provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 3 allegedly has been violated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court “shall dismiss 4 [a] case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal ... fails to state a claim on 5 which relief may be granted.” Plaintiff has failed to set forth facts demonstrating that she has a 6 claim for a civil RICO violation. That does not, however, end the Court’s inquiry. 7 The Court also has considered whether the facts alleged state a claim on any other legal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The federal courts can only adjudicate cases which the 10 Constitution or Congress authorize them to adjudicate: basically those cases involving diversity 11 For the Northern District of California theory. Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff has set forth sufficient facts to state a claim, federal 9 United States District Court 8 of citizenship (where the parties are from diverse states), or a federal question, or those cases to 12 which the United States is a party. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of 13 America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil 14 cases and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. See 15 id. at 377. Absent some basis for jurisdiction, this Court must dismiss the matter. See Fed. R. 16 Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court 17 lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”); see also FW/PBS, 18 Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) (stating that the district court has an 19 independent obligation to determine subject matter jurisdiction). If the Court determines that 20 subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court must dismiss the case. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 12(h)(3). 22 Having failed to set forth facts supporting a RICO claim, claims over which this Court 23 would have jurisdiction, there are no facts alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint demonstrating that 24 this Court would have subject matter jurisdiction over this action on any other basis. 25 For these reasons, Plaintiff’s application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the 26 Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this 27 action, she must file an Amended Complaint and a renewed application to proceed in forma 28 pauperis by February 24, 2012. In any amended complaint, Plaintiff must include the basis for 2 1 which subject matter jurisdiction exists. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (complaint must contain, 2 inter alia, “a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction 3 depends”). Failure to file a cognizable legal claim by this date shall result in dismissal of this 4 action with prejudice. The Court advises Plaintiff that a Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which 5 contains helpful information about proceeding without an attorney, is available through the 6 Court’s website or in the Clerk’s office. The Court also advises Plaintiff that additional 7 assistance may be available by making an appointment with the Legal Help Center, which is 8 located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, California, 94102. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Dated: February 7, 2012 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 TERRA S. YOUNG, Case Number: CV12-00257 JSW 6 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 7 v. 8 NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES et al, 9 Defendant. / 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 12 District Court, Northern District of California. 13 That on February 7, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter 14 listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 15 16 17 Terra S. Young 5 Santo Domingo Trail, North 18 Corrales, NM 87048 19 Dated: February 7, 2012 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

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?