Smith v. De Santo et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. Show Cause Response due by 11/4/2016. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/14/16. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RYAN J. SMITH, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 Plaintiff, v. DEANNE DE SANTO; JOE DESANTO; DE SANTO FAMILY; et al., ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Defendants. 14 15 No. C 16-5478 CW ________________________________/ Pro se Plaintiff Ryan J. Smith has filed a complaint in this 16 Court alleging claims for “parental alienation,” “conspiracy of 17 rights,” and “Munchausen Syndrome by proxy.”1 Docket No. 1. 18 Subject matter jurisdiction is predicated on federal question 19 jurisdiction. Id. at 2. 20 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They 21 possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” 22 23 1 24 25 26 27 28 The Court notes that the complaint identifies by name Plaintiff’s five year old son. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) provides that the name of any “individual known to be a minor” must be redacted from publicly filed court documents. The Court has restricted access to the complaint on the electronic docket so that only case participants may view it. In all future filings, Plaintiff shall identify his son by his initials, rather than his full name. 1 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 2 (1994). 3 the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. 4 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n.3 (2006). 5 Federal courts have a duty to examine jurisdiction sua sponte 6 before proceeding to the merits of a case, Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon 7 Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999), “even in the absence of a 8 challenge from any party.” 9 501 (2006). United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Federal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts have federal question 11 jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the United States 12 Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 13 Court has stated, “We have long held that ‘[t]he presence or 14 absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well- 15 pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction 16 exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of 17 the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.’” 18 Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. 19 Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987)). 20 of Plaintiff’s complaint that his claims are based on the United 21 States Constitution or any federal law or treaty. The Supreme Rivet v. Regions It does not appear from the face 22 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why his 23 complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter 24 jurisdiction. 25 the date of this order. 26 deadline may be deemed as consent to dismissal without prejudice 27 of this action. Any response must be filed within three weeks of Failure to submit a response by this 28 2 1 The Court advises Plaintiff that he may wish to seek 2 assistance from the Legal Help Center, with locations in room 3 2796, on the 15th Floor of the Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate 4 Avenue, San Francisco, California, and in room 470s, on the 4th 5 Floor of the Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, 6 California, where Plaintiff may sign up for a free appointment 7 with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help, but 8 not legal representation. 9 appointment with either location of the Legal Help Center is (415) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 The telephone number for scheduling an 782-8982. IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 Dated: October 14, 2016 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?