Taleff et al v. Taleff

Filing 4

ORDER denying as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Sua Sponte Dismissing 1 Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; denying as moot 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. The Court DENIES as moot Taleff's motion to pr oceed IFP, DISMISSES sua sponte the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and DENIES as moot Taleff's motion to appoint counsel. If Taleff elects to continue in federal court rather than re-file in state court, Taleff must file: (1) an amended complaint no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this order, and (2) an updated IFP motion. Any amended complaint must clearly set forth why this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 7/2/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(acc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Case No.: 18-CV-1294-AJB-JMA
TONY TALEFF and VERA TALEFF,
(1) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS (Doc. No. 2)

13
Plaintiffs,

14
15

v.

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING
COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
(Doc. No. 1); and

16
17
18

MARCIA LYNN SATTGAST TALEFF,

(3) DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL (Doc. No. 3).

19
20
21

Defendant.

22
23

Tony Taleff and Vera Taleff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action against

24

Defendant Marcia L. Sattgast Taleff. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiffs also filed for leave to proceed

25

in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in their complaint. (Doc. No. 2.) The Court reviews Plaintiffs’

26

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), as required when a plaintiff files a motion to proceed

27

IFP. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2.) The Court finds sua sponte that Taleff’s complaint does not establish

28

subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, the Court DENIES as moot Taleff’s IFP motion,
1
18-CV-1294-AJB-JMA

1

DISMISSES the complaint for failure to state subject matter jurisdiction, and DENIES as

2

moot Taleff’s motion to appoint counsel.

3

I.

MOTION FOR IFP

4

Taleff moves to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. All parties instituting any civil

5

action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for

6

writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action

7

may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is

8

granted leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d

9

1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). All actions sought to be filed IFP under § 1915 must be

10

accompanied by an affidavit, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that includes

11

a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security.

12

CivLR 3.2.a.

13

Taleff’s affidavit states he receives no monthly income because he is currently

14

unemployed. (Doc. No. 2 at 2.) Taleff writes he did not earn an income in 2017 because he

15

was caring for his parent who underwent three operations. (Id. at 6.) He also states he was

16

last employed in 2016. (Id. at 6.) The Court finds that Taleff has sufficiently shown an

17

inability to pay the filing fee, but DENIES the IFP motion as moot because he failed to

18

state a claim.

19

II.

DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

20

Taleff’s complaint alleges the following seven claims: (1) Making false statements

21

to a federal investigator; (2) Defamation of character; (3) Psychological child abuse; (4)

22

Constitutional rights to be a parent; (5) Conversion of property, documents, jewelry,

23

invasion of privacy; (6) Seizure of property, interest repayment; and (7) Elder abuse, child

24

abuse, and extortion. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.)

25

III.

DISCUSSION

26

Taleff contends that jurisdiction is based on federal question. Based on the Court’s

27

review of the complaint, the Court finds Taleff failed to establish federal question

28

jurisdiction. Taleff simply listed the factual statements regarding his claims but failed to
2
18-CV-1294-AJB-JMA

1

state any legal arguments or violations of any constitutional or federal law. (See Doc. No. 1

2

at 5–11.) And while Rule 8 only requires a short and plain statement of facts, Taleff still

3

must connect those facts to federal claims.

4

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Unlike state courts, they have no

5

inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction. They can adjudicate only those cases which

6

the Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate, i.e. those involving diversity

7

of citizenship, a federal question, or to which the United States is a party. See Finley v.

8

United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction

9

over civil actions and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting

10

jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A federal

11

court cannot reach the merits of any dispute until it confirms that it has subject matter

12

jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues presented. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better

13

Enviorn., 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998). As a result, federal courts are under a continuing duty

14

to confirm their jurisdictional power and “obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt

15

arises as to [its] existence. . . .” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S.

16

274, 278 (1977) (citations omitted). “Subject matter jurisdiction is determined from the

17

face of the complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

18

A. Claims One, Two, Three, Five, Six, and Seven

19

Here, Taleff claims the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matter based

20

on federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, the following claims are deeply

21

grounded in state law: defamation, conversion of property, seizure of property, elder abuse,

22

psychological child abuse, and making false statements to a federal investigator. Taleff’s

23

complaint fails to invoke a federal question and Taleff has not shown that diversity

24

jurisdiction exists. (See Doc. No. 1.) As a result, Taleff has not presented sufficient basis

25

for federal jurisdiction in this case.

26

B. Claim Four (Constitutional Rights as a Parent)

27

Moreover, Taleff also states his constitutional rights as a parent were violated,

28

however he only makes a vague reference to a violation of his constitutional rights.
3
18-CV-1294-AJB-JMA

1

(Doc. No. 1 at 8.) Taleff has not alleged a violation of the constitution as an individual

2

claim or a violation of federal law. Additionally, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,

3

pursuant to the domestic relations exception, which divests the federal courts of jurisdiction

4

to resolve disputes involving custody and support decrees. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards,

5

504 U.S. 689, 702–03 (1992); see Thompson v. Thompson, 798 F.2d 1547, 1562

6

(9th Cir. 1986), aff’d, 484 U.S. 174 (1988). In his complaint, Taleff’s primary allegations

7

were that Marcia Taleff, his ex-wife, was allegedly interfering with his parental rights to

8

see, visit, and speak with their children. (Doc. No. 1 at 8.) As such, the Court cannot have

9

subject matter jurisdiction over this claim. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte DISMISESS

10

the complaint without prejudice.

11

IV.

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

12

Concurrently with the filing of Taleff’s complaint, Taleff filed a motion for

13

appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 3.) Taleff’s motion for appointment of counsel is

14

DENIED as moot as Taleff has not established subject matter jurisdiction.

15

V.

CONCLUSION

16

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES as moot Taleff’s motion to

17

proceed IFP, DISMISSES sua sponte the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

18

and DENIES as moot Taleff’s motion to appoint counsel. If Taleff elects to continue in

19

federal court rather than re-file in state court, Taleff must file: (1) an amended complaint

20

no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this order, and (2) an updated IFP motion.

21

Any amended complaint must clearly set forth why this Court has subject matter

22

jurisdiction.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: July 2, 2018

25
26
27
28
4
18-CV-1294-AJB-JMA