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)

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