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
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?