Vahidallah v. Emirates Airline Terminal 4

Filing 3

ORDER (1) Granting 2 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis and (2) Dismissing Action for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim. The Court sua sponte dismisses the Complaint. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 4/10/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(aef) (sjt).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 15 16 ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND (2) DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No. 18-cv-0419 DMS (MDD) HUSSAIN D. VAHIDALLAH, v. EMIRATES AIRLINE TERMINAL 4 JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, Defendant. 17 18 19 Plaintiff Hussain D. Vahidallah, a nonprisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 20 Complaint against Defendant Emirates Ailrine Terminal 4 John F. Kennedy 21 International Airport. Plaintiff has not paid the $400 civil filing fee required to 22 commence this action, but rather, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 23 (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 24 A. Motion to Proceed IFP 25 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a court may authorize the commencement of 26 a suit without prepayment of fees if plaintiffs submit an affidavit, including a 27 statement of all their assets, showing that they are unable to pay filing fees. See 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Here, Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit sufficiently showing –1– 18-cv-0419 DMS (MDD) 1 that he lacks the financial resources to pay filing fees. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 2 motion to proceed IFP is granted. 3 B. Sua Sponte Screening 4 Any complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), is 5 subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court, if it finds 6 the Complaint is “frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may 7 be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 8 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 9 (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”). In 10 addition, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter 11 jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 12 Federal courts—unlike state courts—are courts of limited jurisdiction and 13 lack inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction. 14 adjudicate those cases in which the United States Constitution and Congress 15 authorize them to adjudicate. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 16 377 (1994). In the federal courts, subject matter jurisdiction may arise from either 17 “federal question jurisdiction” or “diversity jurisdiction.” 18 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331–32. To invoke 19 diversity jurisdiction, the complaint must allege that “the matter in controversy 20 exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between 21 ... citizens of different States ... [or] citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a 22 foreign state....” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). To invoke federal question jurisdiction, the 23 complaint must allege that the “action[ ] aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or 24 treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal courts are presumptively 25 without jurisdiction over civil actions and the burden of establishing the contrary 26 rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Subject 27 matter jurisdiction is determined from the face of the complaint. See Caterpillar 28 Inc., 482 U.S. at 392 (“federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is –2– Federal courts can only Caterpillar Inc. v. 18-cv-0419 DMS (MDD) 1 presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.”). 2 Plaintiff indicates on the civil cover sheet that jurisdiction in this Court is 3 based on federal question pursuant to § 1331. However, a review of the Complaint 4 indicates there is only a state law claim for fraud. Thus, contrary to Plaintiff’s 5 assertion, the Court does not have federal subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, 6 Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction. It is 7 unclear whether Plaintiff has brought suit against John F. Kennedy International 8 Airport and/or Emirates Airlines. Although Plaintiff has stated in the caption of the 9 Complaint that the Airport is located in New York, the allegations pertain solely to 10 Emirates Airline, and the Complaint does not address the citizenship of Emirates 11 Airline. 12 In any event, even if the Court had subject matter jurisdiction over this action, 13 the Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 14 The Complaint is comprised of unintelligible assertions that fail to allege Plaintiff’s 15 entitlement to relief. The allegations in the Complaint are insufficient to put 16 Defendant on notice of the claim against it, as required by Federal Rule of Civil 17 Procedure 8. Moreover, the allegations in the Complaint certainly do not satisfy the 18 heightened pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) required to 19 state a claim for fraud. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte dismisses the Complaint. 20 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 10, 2018 23 24 25 26 27 28 –3– 18-cv-0419 DMS (MDD)

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?