Satterwhite v. 24 Hour Fitness

Filing 7

ORDER For Reassignment to a District Judge; ORDER granting 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re Dismissal. Objections due by 5/25/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 5/8/2017. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2017)

Download PDF
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 DACOREY SATTERWHITE, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 18 v. 24 HOUR FITNESS, Defendant. Case No.5:17-cv-00848-HRL ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A DISTRICT JUDGE ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE DISMISSAL Re: Dkt. No. 2 DaCorey Satterwhite seeks to sue 24 Hour Fitness for $5 million dollars for “pain and 19 suffering.” He also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). His complaint is based on the 20 following allegations: (1) a gym trainer “made a comment can you do a push-up”; (2) when he 21 asked about his gym membership, an employee said that his “account was out” because 22 Satterwhite missed his appointment, and then that employee “got an attitude”; (3) another 23 employee said to call the police on Satterwhite because Satterwhite was concerned about his 24 membership; (4) when Satterwhite first started his membership, an employee “made a comment 25 are you sure the money is on this card” and also said “you stink you smell like tobacco”; and (5) 26 another employee “made a comment and said check in Big Dude.” (Dkt. 1). For the reasons 27 28 stated below, the undersigned grants the IFP application, but recommends that this matter be 1 2 dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. A court may authorize the commencement of a civil action in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if the court is satisfied that the applicant cannot pay the requisite filing fees. 28 U.S.C § 1915(a)(1). In 4 evaluating such an application, the court should “gran[t] or den[y] IFP status based on the 5 applicant’s financial resources alone and then independently determin[e] whether to dismiss the 6 complaint on the grounds that it is frivolous.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226-27 n.5 7 (9th Cir. 1984). A court may dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing fee whenever it 8 determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief 9 may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 10 relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). Additionally, the court has a continuing duty to 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 3 determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss a case where jurisdiction is 12 lacking. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 13 Satterwhite’s IFP application is granted because the record indicates that he lacks sufficient 14 finances to pay the filing fee. Even so, this court finds that Satterwhite’s suit cannot proceed here 15 because there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over his complaint. 16 Satterwhite does not invoke federal question jurisdiction, (see Dkt. 1-1), and this court 17 finds that there is no federal question jurisdiction anyway. Federal courts have original 18 jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 19 States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under” federal law if, based on the “well-pleaded 20 complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief. Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 129 S. 21 Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). Satterwhite’s complaint alleges no facts giving rise to a cognizable claim 22 for relief under federal law. 23 There is also no basis for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal district 24 courts have jurisdiction over civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or 25 value of $75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs) and is between citizens of different states. 28 26 U.S.C. § 1332. Here, the record indicates that both Satterwhite and defendant are California 27 citizens. (Dkt. 1-1). 28 There being no basis for federal question or diversity jurisdiction, this case should be 2 1 dismissed. Because the parties have yet to consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this court 2 ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a District Judge. The undersigned further 3 RECOMMENDS that Satterwhite’s complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 4 Any party may serve and file objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days 5 after being served. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 6 7 SO ORDERED. Dated: May 8, 2017 8 9 HOWARD R. LLOYD United States Magistrate Judge 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 2 3 5:17-cv-00848-HRL Notice sent by U.S. Mail on 5/8/17 to: DaCorey Satterwhite 479 Blossom Hill Road San Jose, CA 95123 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?