Willis v. Willis

Filing 4

Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 10/24/2016. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 11/22/2016, 10:00 AM, Courtroom 2, Fifth Floor, San Jose. Show Cause Response due by 11/15/2016. (hrllc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2016)

1
E-filed 10/26/2016

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

LILLIYA WILLIS,

Case No. 16-cv-05957-HRL

Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15

ANDRE WILLIS,
Defendant.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

16
17

Pro se plaintiff Lilliya Willis (“Plaintiff”) sues defendant Andre Willis, aka Andrei

18

Poskatcheev (“Defendant”), for trespass, extortion, fraud, and breach of contract. Dkt. No. 1. She

19

alleges that a state court action brought against her by Defendant is “false” and “void,” Dkt. No. 1,

20

Ex. A, and attaches a copy of a state court order granting Defendant’s request to expunge a lis

21

pendens and abstract of judgment recorded by the Plaintiff, Dkt. No. 1, Ex. B. The plaintiff’s

22

complaint does not reference any federal or state law or any constitutional provision, and it does

23

not include a description of the parties’ state citizenship or an amount in controversy.

24

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and are only empowered to hear cases when

25

permitted by the Constitution or Congress. Furthermore, the court has a duty to determine

26

whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h). A case must be dismissed if it

27

appears at any time before the final judgment that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Id.

28

The two main sources of federal jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction (also known

1
2

as “arising under” jurisdiction) and diversity jurisdiction.
Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution,

3

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

4

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

5

v. Discovery Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). Here, it is not clear from the plaintiff’s

6

complaint whether she meets this standard.

7

Federal district courts also have jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of different

8

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

9

interest and costs). 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Here, Plaintiff does not identify the citizenship of each

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

party and does not allege an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
As a result of these deficiencies, the court hereby orders Plaintiff to show cause why her

12

case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall appear in

13

Courtroom 2, Fifth Floor of the United States District Court, 280 South First Street, San Jose,

14

California, on November 22, 2016, at 10:00 AM, and show cause, if any, why the case should not

15

be dismissed. Additionally, Plaintiff shall file a statement in response to this order to show cause

16

no later than November 15, 2016, advising the court as to the source of its subject matter

17

jurisdiction over this action (if any).

18

Plaintiff is advised that assistance for pro se litigants may be available from the federal pro

19

se program, which can be reached at 408-297-1480. The Court encourages Plaintiff to contact this

20

program to determine what assistance may be available.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 10/24/2016

23
Howard R. Lloyd
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2