Caballero v. Doan et al

Filing 10

ORDER That Case Be Reassigned to a District Judge; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Dismissal for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Objections due by 10/25/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 10/8/2013. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

NOT FOR CITATION

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
AMADEO CABALLERO,

12

Case No. 5:13-cv-04482 HRL

Plaintiff,
13
v.

ORDER THAT THIS CASE BE
REASSIGNED TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

14
THANH DOAN and DOEES 1 through 10,
inclusive,

15

Defendants.

16

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

17
On September 27, 2013, plaintiff Amadeo Caballero filed a “Complaint for Declaratory

18
19

Judgment.” For the reasons stated below, this court recommends that this matter be dismissed for

20

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution,

21
22

laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under” federal law if,

23

based on the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief. Vaden

24

v. Discovery Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). Although plaintiff’s complaint cites a litany of

25

federal statutes and rules, none confer federal jurisdiction. 1 Rather, the gravamen of the complaint

26
1

27
28

For instance, plaintiff cites Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 11, 57 and 65, as well as Civil
Local Rules 65-1 and 7-10. Those rules simply set federal standards for declaratory or injunctive
relief and for filing pleadings, motions, and other papers filed with a federal court. They are not
bases for affirmative claims for relief in a complaint. While the complaint also seeks relief under

1

is that defendants misapplied sections 1161-1161(a) of the California Code of Civil Procedure in

2

connection with an unlawful detainer action pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

3

As a consequence, plaintiff says that the unlawful detainer action must be dismissed. But, the

4

enforcement of state procedural rules in a pending state action is not within the province of this

5

court. Because there is no federal question jurisdiction, there is also no basis for the exercise of

6

supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

7

Nor is there diversity jurisdiction. Federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil

8

actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 (exclusive of

9

interest and costs) and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. §1332. Here, the

10

complaint states that all parties are California citizens. (Dkt. No. 1 at p. 5, ¶ 6).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Because not all parties have consented to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this court

12

ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a District Judge. The undersigned further

13

RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge dismiss this action for lack of subject matter

14

jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter

15

jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).

16

Additionally, the undersigned notes that plaintiff previously filed a similar complaint here

17

earlier this year and was told that the court had no subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. See

18

Case No. 13-cv-01594-EJD, Caballero v. Doan. Plaintiff is warned that if he persists in flouting

19

the orders of the court, he may be subject to sanctions.

20

Any party may serve and file objections to this Report and Recommendation within

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that act does not by itself confer federal subject
matter jurisdiction. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Liberatore, 408 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 2005).
See also Vaden, 129 S. Ct. at 1278 n.19 (“[T]he Declaratory Judgment Act does not enlarge the
jurisdiction of the federal courts; it is ‘procedural only.’”). Plaintiff also cites criminal statutes for
which there is no private right of action. The complaint references 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. and
15 U.S.C. § 1640(e); 15 U.S.C. § 1692g; “FDCPA and “FCRA”; 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988; 28
U.S.C. § 1985; and “Violation of RICO Statutes,” but the allegations of the complaint do not state
a claim for relief under any of those statutes.
2

1
2
3

5:13-cv-04472-HRL Notice sent by U.S. Mail to:
Amadeo Caballero
583 Groth Drive
San Jose, CA 95111

4
5
6
7
8
9
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
4