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)

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