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)

Download PDF
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?