Roberts et al v. Solari Enterprise Inc. et al
Filing
6
ORDER (1) Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; (2) Dismissing without Prejudice Plaintiffs' Complaint; and (3) Denying Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF Nos. #1 , #2 , #3 ). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. #2 ) is DENIED; 2. Plaintiffs' Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 3. Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. #3 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as MOOT; and 4. Plaintiffs are GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date on which this Order is electronically docketed to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified above. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 1/6/2021. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (tcf)
Case 3:20-cv-02476-JLS-BLM Document 6 Filed 01/06/21 PageID.24 Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
TINA LOUISE ROBERTS and TONY
LEE-VANT WRIGHT,
15
ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;
(2) DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’
COMPLAINT; AND (3) DENYING
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
Plaintiffs,
13
14
Case No.: 20-cv-2476-JLS (BLM)
v.
SOLARI ENTERPRISE INC. and
FEDEX.COM,
16
Defendants.
(ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3)
17
18
19
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Tina Louise Roberts and Tony Lee-Vant
20
Wright’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (IFP Mot., ECF No. 2) and Motion
21
to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3). Plaintiffs appear to be asserting fraud and personal injury
22
claims stemming from Defendant Fedex.com’s alleged loss of a package.
23
IFP MOTION
24
All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the
25
United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
20-cv-2476-JLS (BLM)
Case 3:20-cv-02476-JLS-BLM Document 6 Filed 01/06/21 PageID.25 Page 2 of 4
1
$400.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to
2
prepay the entire fee only if she is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
3
§ 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court
4
may authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of fees if the party
5
submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that she is unable to pay the
6
required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
7
Here, Plaintiff Tina Louise Roberts filed an affidavit stating that she has a monthly
8
income of $1,156, based off of disability disbursements and food stamps. (IFP Mot. at 2.)
9
The affidavit lists no other assets. (Id. at 3.) In juxtaposition, the affidavit indicates
10
Plaintiff has monthly expenses totaling $568.2 The amount of money Plaintiff Roberts
11
indicates she expects to continue to receive on a monthly basis exceeds her monthly debts
12
and obligations by more than $500. Additionally, Plaintiff states that she is owed $3,000.
13
(Id. at 2.)
14
Based on this information, the Court finds Plaintiffs have not shown they cannot pay
15
the court costs and still afford the necessities of life. The amount of money Plaintiff
16
Roberts indicates she expects to receive on a monthly basis exceeds her expected monthly
17
debts and obligations by enough that she could pay the one-time filing fee without
18
impacting her regular expenses.
19
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed IFP.
20
SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
21
Even if Plaintiffs were granted IFP status, however, the Court would dismiss the
22
Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs are asserting
23
24
25
26
1
In addition to the $350 statutory fee, all parties filing civil actions on or after May 1, 2013, must pay an
additional administrative fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees,
District Court Misc. Fee Schedule) (eff. May 1, 2013). However, the additional $50 administrative fee is
waived if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.
2
27
28
The affidavit breaks down the monthly expenses as $200 for food; $150 for clothing; $20 for laundry
and dry-cleaning; $18 for transportation; $20 for recreation; $125 for homeowner’s or renter’s insurance;
and $35 for life insurance. (IFP Mot. at 4–5.) Combined, this amounts to $568—$588 less than Plaintiff
indicates in the total monthly expenses column on the affidavit.
2
20-cv-2476-JLS (BLM)
Case 3:20-cv-02476-JLS-BLM Document 6 Filed 01/06/21 PageID.26 Page 3 of 4
1
personal injury and fraud claims and seek $5,000 in damages. ECF No. 1-1.
2
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as such have an obligation to
3
dismiss claims for which they lack subject matter jurisdiction. Demarest v. United States,
4
718 F.2d 964, 965 (9th Cir. 1983). Federal courts are “obliged to inquire sua sponte
5
whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of federal jurisdiction.” Mt. Healthy City Sch.
6
Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977) (citations omitted). Federal district
7
courts “may not grant relief absent a constitutional or valid statutory grant of jurisdiction”
8
and are “presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively
9
appears.” A–Z Int’l v. Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations
10
omitted). Congress has conferred on the district courts original jurisdiction over both
11
federal question cases and diversity cases. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Serv., Inc.,
12
545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). Federal question cases are civil actions that arise under the
13
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Diversity cases are
14
civil actions between citizens of different States; between U.S. citizens and foreign
15
citizens; or by foreign states against U.S. citizens which exceed a specific amount in
16
controversy, currently $75,000. Id. § 1332.
17
Here, Plaintiffs stated the basis of jurisdiction is a U.S. Government plaintiff. See
18
ECF No. 1-1. It appears from the Complaint that Plaintiffs are individuals suing in their
19
individual capacity. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. No U.S. Government connection
20
is alleged. See generally id. Plaintiffs’ fraud and personal injury claims do not raise a
21
federal question because they do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
22
United States. Additionally, it is unclear from the Complaint whether the parties are
23
diverse, and the amount in controversy is only $5,000. See ECF No. 1-1.
24
In this case, Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to invoke a federal question and Plaintiff has
25
not shown that diversity jurisdiction exists. Moreover, the United States is not a party to
26
this case. As a result, Plaintiffs have not presented a sufficient basis for federal jurisdiction
27
in this case. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
28
///
3
20-cv-2476-JLS (BLM)
Case 3:20-cv-02476-JLS-BLM Document 6 Filed 01/06/21 PageID.27 Page 4 of 4
1
If Plaintiffs file a renewed IFP motion, they should also file an amended complaint clearly
2
stating the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction.
3
REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
4
Plaintiff also filed a request for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3.) Since the
5
Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for
6
appointment of counsel as MOOT.
7
CONCLUSION
8
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
9
1.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is DENIED;
10
2.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of
11
12
subject matter jurisdiction;
3.
13
14
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as MOOT; and
4.
Plaintiffs are GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date on which this Order
15
is electronically docketed to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified
16
above.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2021
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
20-cv-2476-JLS (BLM)
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?