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)
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?