Christopher v. Reaching Fourth Ministries et al

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Court dismisses this action without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, he must do so by 11/24/2017. If Plaintiff fails to fil e the amended complaint within the specific time, Court will direct the Clerk to close the case. Court terminates as moot Defendants' 10 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants and Motion for U.S. Marshals to Effect Service. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 10/31/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

CARREA CHRISTOPHER,

13

Case No. 17-cv-00726-BAS-BLM
Plaintiff,

14

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

v.

15
16

REACHING FOURTH
MINISTRIES,
et al.,

17
18

Defendants.
Plaintiff Carrea Christopher, proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”), has filed a

19
20

First Amendment Complaint (“FAC”).

21

§1915(e), this Court has conducted a mandatory screening of the FAC and

22

determined that dismissal is warranted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

23

I.

24

(ECF No. 6.)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed the original complaint on April 10, 2017, alleging claims of

25

negligence, fraud, and malpractice against multiple defendants.

26

Plaintiff also alleged claims of “intentional drained natural resources” and

27

“destruction and the drainage of land” located in Cherokee County, Texas. (Id.)

28

Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed IFP, which this Court granted.
–1–

(ECF No. 1.)

17cv726

1

(ECF Nos. 2, 3.) After granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP, the Court

2

conducted a mandatory screening of the Complaint, as required by 28 U.S.C. §1915.

3

(ECF No. 3.) The Court determined that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction

4

over the case because the Plaintiff failed to allege citizenship of the individual and

5

corporate defendants for the purposes of invoking diversity jurisdiction. (Id. at 4.)

6

The Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice.

7

Plaintiff subsequently filed the FAC on April 28, 2017. (ECF No. 6) He now

8

alleges that he is a resident of both California and Washington. (Id. at 2.) He alleges

9

that the Defendants’ principal place of business and incorporation as well as

10

residence is Texas. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that two of the Defendants named in

11

the FAC, Ava Taji and Gillian Dandekar, are California real estate brokers. (Id. at

12

28−31.) The Court did not conduct a mandatory screening of the FAC after its filing.

13

The Court does so now.

14

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
A complaint filed by any litigant proceeding IFP is subject to mandatory

15
16

screening by the court in which the complaint is brought.

See 28 U.S.C.

17

§1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he

18

provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”).

19

§1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss a case if the court determines that the action is

20

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against persons

21

immune from suit. In addition—and separate from the pre-screening requirements

22

of § 1915(e)—“federal courts have a duty to raise and decide issues of subject matter

23

jurisdiction sua sponte, if at any time it appears that subject matter jurisdiction may

24

be lacking.” Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd v. Wikileaks, 535 F. Supp. 2d 980, 984

25

(N.D. Cal. 2008) (citations omitted). “Where a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,

26

it must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.” Adames v. Taju, 80 F. Supp. 3d 465,

27

467 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (citing Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)).

28

III.

Under

DISCUSSION
–2–

17cv726

1

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to correct the pleading deficiency that

2

warranted dismissal of the original complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

3

To invoke diversity jurisdiction, there must be complete diversity of citizenship

4

between the parties and the amount of controversy must exceed $75,000. See

5

Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806); 28 U.S.C. §1332(a). Complete

6

diversity exists when “the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship

7

of each defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).

8

Plaintiff alleges that he is a resident of both California and Washington. (ECF

9

No. 6 at 2.) For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a natural person’s citizenship

10

is determined by the state of domicile, not the state of residence. Kanter v. Warner-

11

Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). A person’s domicile is his

12

permanent home, where he resides with the intention to remain or to which he intends

13

to return. Id. Plaintiff’s new allegations of residence in two states are insufficient to

14

show his state citizenship. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff is in fact domiciled in

15

the state of California (which appears to be the case), complete diversity will not exist

16

in this case as long as any named Defendant is also a citizen of California. Although

17

Plaintiff alleges that “the Defendants principal place of business and incorporation as

18

well as residence is Texas,” (ECF No. 6 at 2), Plaintiff has also named two

19

Defendants, Ava Taji and Gillian Dandekar, who are alleged to be California real

20

estate brokers. (Id. at 28−31.) The Court is not satisfied that there is the requisite

21

diversity in this case to support its subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

22

Even if the Plaintiff corrects the deficiencies in the FAC, the Court observes

23

that venue in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California

24

is likely improper. “A civil action may be brought in: (1) a judicial district in which

25

any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district

26

is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions

27

giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the

28

subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which any action may
–3–

17cv726

1

otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any

2

defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.”

3

28 U.S.C. §1391(b). Section 1391(b)(1) is inapplicable based on the allegations in

4

the FAC because all the Defendants do not reside in the same state.

5

1391(b)(2), however, would indicate that venue is likely proper in a judicial district

6

in Texas because a substantial part of the events or omissions alleged in the FAC

7

occurred in that state. Moreover, the property that is the subject of the alleged fraud

8

and which Plaintiff alleges was illegally drained is situated in Cherokee County,

9

Texas. (ECF No. 6 at 25.) The Court advises the Plaintiff that any amended

10

complaint filed with this Court may be subject to dismissal for lack of proper venue.

11

IV.

Section

CONCLUSION & ORDER

12

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY DISMISSES this action

13

without prejudice. If the Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, he must do

14

so no later than November 24, 2017. The Court advises the Plaintiff that if he

15

chooses to file a second amended complaint, it will be subject to another mandatory

16

screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915. If the Plaintiff fails to file an amended

17

complaint within the specific time, the Court will direct the Clerk to close the case.

18

The Court TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for

19

Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (ECF No. 10), and Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting an

20

Extension of Time to Serve Defendants and Motion for Service by the United States

21

Marshal (ECF No. 13).

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 31, 2017

24
25
26
27
28
–4–

17cv726