Ji v. National Security

Filing 6

ORDER (1) TO SHOW CAUSE AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN EARLY CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Show Cause Response due by 4/22/2015. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 4/10/2015. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
QIU MIN JI,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 15-01569 LB
Plaintiff,

v.
13
14

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENT AND
OTHER AGENTS KNOWN AND
UNKNOWN,

ORDER (1) TO SHOW CAUSE AND
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR AN EARLY CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

15
16
17

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff Qui Min Ji, who is proceeding pro se, filed a document titled,

18

“Complaint Disclose the Forever Mystery of our Cyber Security,” against “National Security Agent

19

and other Agents Known or Unknown.” (Complaint, ECF No. 3.) The gist of Plaintiff’s complaint

20

is that a Chinese spy who resides in the United States has been controlling the Internet for over four

21

years. This Chinese spy implanted multiple biosensors into Plaintiff’s brain and uses them to

22

control Plaintiff. Somehow, FCC regulations regarding DNS name registration are involved, too.

23

In the complaint, Plaintiff never describes the agent(s) sued, never alleges a specific legal claim

24

against the agent(s), and never alleges why this court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the action.

25

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511

26

U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 700 (9th Cir. 2007). A

27

plaintiff who seeks to invoke federal jurisdiction by filing a complaint in federal court bears the

28

burden of establishing that jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; Farmers Ins.

1

Exchange v. Portage La Prairie Mut. Ins. Co., 907 F.2d 911, 912 (9th Cir. 1990). The plaintiff must

2

therefore plead sufficient facts in the complaint to establish the court’s jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P.

3

8(a)(1). Plaintiff has not done this.

4
5
6

Accordingly, the court orders Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff must do so in writing by April 22, 2015.
Further, because Plaintiff has not shown that this court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this

7

action, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion for an early case management conference which was filed

8

on April 8, 2014.

9
10

Dated: April 10, 2015
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2