Larsen-Orta v. Contra Costa County Human Services Department et al

Filing 5

ORDER GRANTING re 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Ragni Larsen-Orta and REASSIGNS this case to a district judge. ; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint, filed by Ragni Larsen-Orta. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 3/11/2025. Objections due by 3/26/2025.(klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2025)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)copy placed in outgoing mail on 3/12/2025.

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RAGNI LARSEN-ORTA,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 4:25-cv-02027-KAW

v.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS APPLICATION; REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

On February 26, 2025, Plaintiff Ragni Larsen-Orta filed this civil action and application to

14

proceed in forma pauperis. Having considered the application, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s

15

application to proceed in forma pauperis and REASSIGNS this case to a district judge with the

16

RECOMMENDATION that it be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter

17

jurisdiction.

18

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

19

The in forma pauperis statute provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if at any time

20

the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action (1) is frivolous or

21

malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

22

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

23

A complaint is frivolous under Section 1915 where there is no subject matter jurisdiction.

24

See Castillo v. Marshall, 207 F.3d 15, 15 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); see also Pratt v. Sumner,

25

807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 19987) (recognizing the general proposition that a complaint should be

26

dismissed as frivolous on Section 1915 review where subject matter jurisdiction is lacking).

27
28

II.

DISCUSSION

As courts of limited jurisdiction, “federal courts have an independent obligation to ensure

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,

2

562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting

3

that district courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject matter

4

jurisdiction”). There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question

5

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A

6

district court has federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution,

7

laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331. A cause of action “arises under federal law

8

only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.” Hansen v. Blue

9

Cross of Cal., 891 F.2d 1384, 1386 (9th Cir. 1989). A district court has diversity jurisdiction

10

“where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between citizens

11

of different states, or citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” Id.

12

Here, Plaintiff appears to be alleging that there was an unfavorable decision rendered by

13

the California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) that will result in a deprivation of

14

medical care as of March 1, 2025. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) In a letter attached to the complaint,

15

dated February 13, 2025, DHCS denied Plaintiff’s request for rehearing, and advised Plaintiff that

16

she may seek court review of the denial by filing “a ‘petition’ in Superior Court.” (Compl. at 9)

17

(emphasis added.) This is not Alameda County Superior Court. As set forth above, federal courts

18

are courts of limited jurisdiction. Alleging amorphous violations of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth

19

Amendments does not confer subject matter jurisdiction over a de facto appeal of a state

20

administrative decision, particularly one in which Plaintiff was explicitly advised that she may

21

seek judicial review in Superior Court.

22

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the complaint is insufficient to satisfy Section 1915

23

review and that it cannot be amended to sufficiently allege a basis for federal subject matter

24

jurisdiction.

25
26

III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint

27

are insufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and REASSIGNS this case to a district judge with

28

2

1

the RECOMMENDATION that it be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed.

2

R. Civ. P. 41(b) (involuntary dismissals for lack of jurisdiction are without prejudice).

3

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge

4

within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D.

5

Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

6

may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS

7

Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011).

8
9

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Dated: March 11, 2025
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3