Riazati v. Public Storage, Inc. et al

Filing 3

ORDER (1) Granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; (2) Dismissing Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 10/13/2017. (jao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MANOUCHEHR RIAZATI,

Case No.: 3:17-cv-2064-BEN-JLB
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER:

PUBLIC STORAGE, INC., et al.,

(1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Defendants.

15

(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

16
17
18
19

On October 6, 2017, Plaintiff Manouchehr Riazati filed a civil complaint and an

20

application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Docket Nos. 1-2.) For the following

21

reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP application and DISMISSES the Complaint

22

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

23

I.

24

Application to Proceed IFP
All parties instituting any civil action in a district court must pay a filing fee. 28

25

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire

26

fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

27

///

28

///
1
3:17-cv-2064-BEN-JLB

1

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),

2

any court of the United States may authorize the commencement,
prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without
prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit
that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person
is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.

3
4
5
6

Plaintiff is not employed and receives approximately $330.00 per month from

7

public assistance. (Docket No. 2 at ¶ 1.) Plaintiff pays for utilities, food, and

8

transportation amounting to approximately $98.00 per month. (Docket No. 2 at ¶ 8.) The

9

Court finds the IFP application sufficiently indicates Plaintiff cannot afford to pay the

10

filing fee. The IFP application is therefore GRANTED.

11

II.

12

Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) specifically states that “[i]f the court

13

determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the

14

action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), “a court may raise the

15

question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the

16

action[.]” Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Emerich v.

17

Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that “[i]t is

18

elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a waivable

19

matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the responsive

20

pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court”). It is the plaintiff’s burden to

21

establish jurisdiction. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96 (2010) (citing

22

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)) (“The burden

23

of persuasion for establishing diversity jurisdiction, of course, remains on the party

24

asserting it.”).

25
26
27
28

The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a) provides:
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
2
3:17-cv-2064-BEN-JLB

1

value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between-(1) citizens of different States;

2
3

(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign
state, except that the district courts shall not have original
jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between
citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign
state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence
in the United States and are domiciled in the same State;

4
5
6
7
8

(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or
subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and

9
10

(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title,
as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.

11
12

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is both a citizen of Iran and a resident of

13

California. (Docket No. 1 at p. 3.) Each Defendant is alleged to be a citizen of

14

California. (Id. at pp. 3-4.)1 Thus, diversity jurisdiction does not exist under 28 U.S.C. §

15

1332(a)(1) because this action is not between “citizens of different States.” Similarly,

16

diversity is lacking under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3) because this action is not between

17

“citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are

18

additional parties.” Diversity also does not exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(4) because

19

Plaintiff is an individual and not a foreign state.

20

Finally, Plaintiff has not established diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

21

1332(a)(2) because although the Complaint alleges Plaintiff is a citizen of Iran, it further

22

alleges Plaintiff is a resident of California. According to the Complaint, the defendants

23

allegedly sold Plaintiff’s “immigration documents.” (Docket No. 1-1 at pp. 4-5.) Thus, it

24

is unclear whether Plaintiff has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the

25

United States. In effect, the Court is unable to determine whether diversity jurisdiction

26
27

All page number references to Plaintiff’s Complaint in this Order refer to the page
numbers generated by the CM/ECF system.
1

28

3
3:17-cv-2064-BEN-JLB

1

exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) because diversity jurisdiction does not exist between

2

“citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted

3

for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State.” 28

4

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2).

5

Moreover, even if diversity of citizenship was not at issue, the Court is not

6

persuaded that Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies the amount in controversy requirement. In

7

addition to filing a separate statement of claims, Plaintiff filed a form complaint, which

8

asked Plaintiff to explain how the amount in controversy exceeds “$75,000, not counting

9

interest and costs of court,” to which Plaintiff responded “yes.” (Docket No. 1 at p. 4.)

10

The Complaint further includes allegations that Defendants are partially responsible for

11

Plaintiff’s medical bills related to a heart attack in excess of $200,000, but did not include

12

facts to indicate why Defendants were liable for the medical bills. (Docket No. 1-1 at pp.

13

2-3.) The remainder of the Complaint alleges various damages such as the sale of

14

Plaintiff’s personal property, but does not include facts from which the Court may draw a

15

plausible inference that the total amount of damages exceeds $75,000.

16

In short, the Court finds the facts in the Complaint insufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s

17

burden to demonstrate that it has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. Hertz Corp.,

18

559 U.S. at 96. As a result, the Court is required to dismiss his complaint for lack of

19

subject matter jurisdiction.

20
21
22
23

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: October 13, 2017

26
27
28
4
3:17-cv-2064-BEN-JLB