Tillman v. Archie

Filing 9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. Show Cause Response due by 3/13/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 2/27/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

TINA TILLMAN,
Plaintiff,

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

Case No.: 13-cv-00359 JSC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

v.

13
14
15

DARRYL ARCHIE,
Defendant.

16
17

On January 25, 2013, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a “Complaint for arrest involvement

18

in conspiracy to insight harm on two children.” (Dkt. No. 1.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s

19

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on January 31, 2013. (Dkt. No. 4.)

20

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and limitations on the court’s jurisdiction must

21

neither be disregarded nor evaded. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374

22

(1978). The Court is obligated to determine sua sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction.

23

See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)

24

(“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss

25

the action.”). Federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the

26

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “For a case to arise under

27

federal law, a plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint must establish either (1) that federal law creates the

28

cause of action or (2) that the plaintiff’s asserted right to relief depends on the resolution of a

1

substantial question of federal law.” K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 1029

2

(9th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Federal courts also have original

3

jurisdiction when there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in

4

controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

5

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not state a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. It is

6

not apparent that her case “arises under federal law” and both parties appear to be citizen of

7

California, thereby defeating diversity of citizenship. (See Dkt. No. 1 (giving Plaintiff’s address as

8

Richmond, California); Dkt. No. 3 at 2 (providing that Defendant’s employer is “San Francisco Bay

9

Area Transit”).) Given this apparent lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court HEREBY

Northern District of California

ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for

11
United States District Court

10

lack of federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file her response to this Order no later than March 13,

12

2013. Failure to respond by that date may result in dismissal of this case. Plaintiff may also

13

discharge this Order by dismissing her Complaint if, upon reflection, Plaintiff believes this Court

14

does not have jurisdiction.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2