Judge v. Army Corp of Engineering

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 10/31/2014 09:30 AM. Show Cause Response due by 10/24/2014. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on September 30, 2014. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROBERT E. JUDGE,

Case No. 14-cv-03863-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

9
10

ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERING,

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiff Robert E. Judge filed a Complaint in this action on August 14, 2014, seeking to

13

compel Defendant Army Corp (sic) of Engineering to “blockade” the New River and Alamo

14

River, which flow from Mexico into California. The Complaint cites no legal authority that

15

compels Defendant to dam these rivers. The Complaint, in full, reads as follows:

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

California cannot stop pollution coming from both rivers - New
River - Alamo river. For the preservation of California to stop
pollution must stop both rivers natural resource areas.
Recognizing constitutional assessment in which allows both rivers
from Entering into US. Both rivers are declare as the polluted
waters of the world. The alternative of this problem is to stop both
rivers coming into the US through Mexico.
Local governments based on enrollment valuations are in need of
this trial case to be approved with blockade of rivers. Conversion to
population growth the water get polluted more/more from Mexico.
This alarming rate continues dramatically from Mexico increase of
population. United States must Stop this river property in actual
use.
The Petitioner had wrote a novel about this project. In which he
began 2000. Conclusion after having used many strategic response
to the pollution in both rivers. This began 1900, and the Salton Sea
in which had been these two rivers assessment leveling off local
government.
Compl. (dkt. 1) (sic throughout).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The Court can only decide a case if the

1
2

Constitution or a federal statute authorizes the federal courts to hear that type of case. See

3

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Statutes commonly

4

invoked to establish jurisdiction include 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (cases arising under federal law),

5

§ 1332 (cases between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds

6

$75,000), and § 1346 (certain types of cases where the United States is a defendant), among

7

others. “[W]hen a federal court concludes that it lack subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must

8

dismiss the complaint in its entirety.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 515 (2006). Here,

9

no basis for jurisdiction is apparent from the Complaint. It is Plaintiff’s burden to establish that

10

federal jurisdiction exists. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.1
Further, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

September 30, 2014. Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and is

13

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any

14

claims which: (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be

15

granted; or (3) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

16

§ 1915(e)(2)(B); see Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). Federal Rule of Civil

17

Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that a pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim

18

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint that lacks such statement fails to state a

19

claim and must be dismissed. Here, the Complaint does not cite, and the Court is not aware of,

20

any statutory or common law authority that would entitle Plaintiff to the relief that he seeks.

21

Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to appear on October 31, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. in

22

Courtroom G, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA, and show cause why

23

the Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

24

Defendant is not required to appear but may do so if it wishes. Any memorandum in support or

25

opposition shall be filed by October 24, 2014 and shall not exceed five pages. The case is

26
1

27
28

Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c). That consent relates to which judge conducts the proceedings of the case. It does
not create federal subject matter jurisdiction, which must be established by statute or the
Constitution. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.
2

1

otherwise STAYED and all other deadlines shall be tolled from the date of this Order through

2

October 31, 2014.

3

Plaintiff may wish to seek free limited legal assistance from the Legal Help Center by

4

calling the appointment line at [phone] or signing up for an appointment in the

5

appointment book located outside the door of the Help Center, located at the San Francisco

6

courthouse at 450 Golden Gate Avenue on the 15th Floor, Room 2796. Appointments are held

7

Monday through Friday at various times throughout the day. Plaintiff can speak with an attorney

8

who will provide basic legal help, but not legal representation.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 30, 2014
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3