Simmons v. Vista Prieta Home Owners Association

Filing 5

ORDER That Case be Reassigned to a District Judge; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re Dismissal of 1 complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Objections due by 10/10/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 9/21/2014. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ROBERTA SIMMONS,

Case No. 5:14-cv-03558 HRL

Plaintiff,
13

ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED
TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

v.
14
15
16
17

VISTA PRIETA HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Roberta Simmons, proceeding pro se, filed the instant complaint arising out of a dispute

18

over the Vista Prieta Homeowners Association Board of Directors’ decision to opt-out from

19

PG&E’s SmartMeter Program. She alleges that certain members of the board stole her identity in

20

order to get PG&E to replace her SmartMeter with an analog meter. Simmons also seeks leave to

21

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). For the reasons stated below, the undersigned grants Simmons’

22

IFP application, but nonetheless recommends that this matter be dismissed for lack of subject

23

matter jurisdiction.

24

A court may authorize the commencement of a civil action in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if the

25

court is satisfied that the applicant cannot pay the requisite filing fees. 28 U.S.C § 1915(a)(1). In

26

evaluating such an application, the court should “gran[t] or den[y] IFP status based on the

27

applicant’s financial resources alone and then independently determin[e] whether to dismiss the

28

complaint on the grounds that it is frivolous.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226-27 n.5

1

(9th Cir. 1984). A court may dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing fee whenever it

2

determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief

3

may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

4

relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). This court concludes that she qualifies financially for

5

IFP status, and her IFP application therefore is granted. Even so, the court finds that her claims

6

should be dismissed because there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over them.

7

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under” federal law if,

9

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

10

v. Discovery Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). The court has a continuing duty to determine

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h). Here, plaintiff’s complaint does

12

not allege any federal claims whatsoever, and it is not apparent that any such claim properly could

13

be pled.

14

Nor does this court find any basis for diversity jurisdiction. Federal district courts have

15

jurisdiction over civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of

16

$75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs) and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C.

17

§1332. It is unclear whether the minimum required amount in controversy is satisfied here. But,

18

in any event, the record presented indicates that there is no diverse citizenship. (See Dkt. 1-3,

19

Section III).

20

Because the parties have yet to consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this court

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

fourteen days after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

25
26
27
28

SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 21, 2014

______________________________________
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2

1
2
3

5:14-cv-03558-HRL A copy of this order was sent by U.S. Mail to:
Roberta Simmons
205 Vista Prieta Court
Santa Cruz, CA 95062

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

3