Davis v. Foothill College et al

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All other pending matters are TERMINATED. The Clerk shall close this file. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/29/2014. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2014)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6

MAURICE DAVIS,

CASE NO. 5:14-cv-04344 EJD
ORDER DISMISSING CASE

7
Plaintiff(s),
8
9

v.
FOOTHILL COLLEGE, et. al.,

10

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Defendant(s).
/

11
12

Plaintiff Maurice Davis (“Plaintiff”) initiated the instant action on September 26, 2014,

13

against Defendants Foothill College, Elizabeth Barkley, Mark Anderson, Patricia Hyland, Kimberly

14

Messina, Linda Thor and Judy Minor (collectively, “Defendants”) for relief related to his enrollment

15

and status at Foothill College. See Docket Item No. 1.1

16

As is its obligation, the court has reviewed the Complaint to determine whether Plaintiff has

17

included allegations sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction and has been guided by the principles

18

that govern such an inquiry. See Mashiri v. Dep’t of Educ., 724 F.3d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir. 2013). In

19

doing so, the court is mindful that “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v.

20

Guardian Life Ins. Co of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal jurisdiction can generally

21

arise in two ways: (1) from the presence of a federal question, or (2) from diversity of the parties.

22

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. For jurisdiction based on a federal question, the court looks to the

23

face of a “well-pleaded complaint” to determine whether a cause of action is created by federal law

24

or whether the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial

25

question of federal law. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 808 (1988)

26

(citing Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28

27
28

1

Although not titled as such, the court has construed the initiating document as a Complaint.
1

CASE NO. 5:14-cv-04344 EJD
ORDER DISMISSING CASE

1

(1983)). For diversity, federal courts have original jurisdiction where (1) opposing parties are

2

citizens of different states and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

3

Jurisdictional allegations in a Complaint are important because “[a] party invoking the

4

federal court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving the actual existence of subject matter

5

jurisdiction.” Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996). To that end, Federal Rule

6

of Civil Procedure 8 requires the plaintiff to provide “a short and plain statement of the grounds for

7

the court’s jurisdiction.” It also requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

8

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

9

Here, the Complaint does not a “short and plain statement” describing the grounds for federal
jurisdiction. In addition, a federal question is nowhere identified in the Complaint, and the court is

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

unable to discern from the nature of the allegations exactly what federal question could arise from

12

the conduct attributed to Defendants. Moreover, jurisdiction cannot be based on diversity of the

13

parties since the allegations suggest that Plaintiff and Defendants are California domiciles.

14

Accordingly, the court cannot proceed further based on the Complaint in its present form.2 Ex Parte

15

McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514, 19 L. Ed. 264 (1868) (“Without jurisdiction the court cannot

16

proceed at all in any cause.”).

17

Based on the foregoing, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of

18

subject matter jurisdiction. All other pending matters are TERMINATED. The Clerk shall close

19

this file.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: September 29, 2014
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff does suggest in the Complaint that Defendants denied him due process. But to the
extent Plaintiff intended to assert a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, he has not specified the
requisite state action necessary to support such a claim. See Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002
(1982). Thus, even if jurisdiction were assumed, the court would dismiss this case under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) because Plaintiff, who as applied to proceed in forma pauperis, has failed to state a
claim.
2
CASE NO. 5:14-cv-04344 EJD
ORDER DISMISSING CASE