Razavi v. Supercuts Salon et al

Filing 4

ORDER That Case Be Reassigned to a District Judge; ORDER granting 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re Dismissal for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Objections due by 7/6/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 6/18/2015. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2015)

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

MELINA RAZAVI,

Case No. 5:15-cv-02574-HRL

Plaintiff,
13
v.

ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED
TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16

SUPERCUTS SALON, REGIS
CORPORATION, AND DOES 1-100,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

17
18
19

Melina Razavi sues for personal injuries allegedly suffered during a visit to a Supercuts

20

salon. She also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). For the reasons discussed

21

below, this court grants her IFP application, but recommends that her complaint be dismissed for

22

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

23

A court may authorize the commencement of a civil action IFP if the court is satisfied that

24

the applicant cannot pay the requisite filing fees. 28 U.S.C § 1915(a)(1). In evaluating such an

25

application, the court should “gran[t] or den[y] IFP status based on the applicant’s financial

26

resources alone and then independently determin[e] whether to dismiss the complaint on the

27

grounds that it is frivolous.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226-27 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984). A

28

court may dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing fee whenever it determines that

1

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

2

or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §

3

1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). This court notes that Razavi’s application fails to state whether the

4

complaint she seeks to file raises claims that have been presented in other lawsuits. (Dkt. 2 at 4).

5

Nevertheless, she qualifies financially for IFP status, and her IFP application therefore is granted.

6

Even so, the court has a continuing duty to determine whether it has subject matter

7

jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h). This court concludes that Razavi may not proceed with this

8

action here because there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

9

Razavi fails to show that jurisdiction is proper based on any federal law. Federal courts
have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under” federal law if, based on the “well-

12

pleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief. Vaden v. Discovery Bank,

13

129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). Plaintiff’s complaint presents a personal injury claim arising only

14

under state law. It does not allege any federal claims whatsoever. And, it is not apparent that she

15

could plead any such claim.

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

§1332. Razavi fails to identify the citizenship of each defendant, and there is no indication that

20

the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.

21
22

There being no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, Razavi’s complaint should be
dismissed.

23

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

24

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

25

RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge dismiss the complaint. Any party may serve and

26
27
28
2

1

file objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being served. Fed.

2

R. Civ. P. 72.

3
4

SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 18, 2015
________________________
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

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

1

5:15-cv-02574-HRL A copy of this order sent on June 18, 2015 by U.S. Mail to:

2

Melina Razavi
1200 Franklin Mall
Santa Clara, CA 95050

3
4
5
6

Melina Razavi
P.O. Box 53034
San Jose, CA 95153

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