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).
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?