Williams v. Episcopal Services

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 12/16/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KEVIN LEE WILLIAMS,

Case No. 15-cv-04868-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

EPISCOPAL SERVICES,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 6

12
13

On November 13, 2015, Magistrate Judge James issued a report and recommendation (the

14

“Report”) in this case. Dkt. 6. The Report recommends dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with

15

leave to amend. Id. at 6. The basis of the dismissal is plaintiff’s failure to plead the jurisdictional

16

basis upon which he can advance his complaint in federal court. Id. at 4-5. As the Report

17

explains, federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; “[t]hey possess only that power

18

authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen

19

v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal citation omitted). There are

20

two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332,

21

and (2) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

22

As to diversity jurisdiction, each plaintiff must be diverse from each defendant, and the

23

amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. On the cover sheet of his

24

complaint, plaintiff checked the box indicating that the basis of jurisdiction is diversity. Dkt. 1-1.

25

However, he states that he is a citizen of California and defendant has its principal place of

26

business in this state. Id. Thus, diversity jurisdiction is lacking.

27

But as the Report explains, it is not absolutely clear that plaintiff cannot state a federal

28

cause of action pursuant to federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. 6 at 6; Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d

1

1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012). In order to do this successfully, plaintiff must allege that the named

2

defendant violated his federal rights, and identify those rights. Plaintiff must also allege enough

3

facts for the Court to determine whether he can state a cognizable claim for relief. The complaint

4

as currently pled makes vague references to threats and harassment. Dkt. 1 at 2. It fails to allege

5

sufficient facts and instead relies on general complaints and conclusory statements. Dkt. 1 at 2-3.

6

The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES

7

plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint no later

8

than January 29, 2015. There is currently no Case Management Conference scheduled for this

9

matter. The Court advises plaintiff to monitor ECF updates in order to determine upcoming dates

10

and deadlines.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 16, 2015
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2