Hall v. Evanston Board of Education et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue, by Judge Richard A Jones. Response due no later than seven (7) days from the date of this Order. (swt) (cc: pro se Plaintiff via USPS)

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

FREDERICK HALL,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

CASE NO. C17-320 RAJ
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
EVANSTON BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et al.,

15
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The Court may raise the issue of
subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time during an action. Allstate Indem. Co. v.
Pacheco, No. 3:14-cv-05366-KLS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150069, *11 (W.D. Wash.
2014); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If
at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). Absent jurisdiction, any determination on the
merits would be void. Watts v. Pickney, 752 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1985). Federal
courts’ jurisdiction is limited to cases or controversies that arise under federal laws or are

27

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE- 1

1 between diverse citizens where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§
2 1331,1332.
3

Plaintiff is suing the City of Evanston, Illinois, the Evanston Board of Education,

4 and the Rittenburg family. Dkt. # 1. Each Defendant appears to reside in Illinois.
5 Moreover, it appears that the actions giving rise to this Complaint occurred in Illinois. Id.
6 It is not clear to the Court how it could exercise subject-matter or personal jurisdiction
7 over any of the Defendants or allegations, nor is it clear how venue is proper in the
8 Western District of Washington. See Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 113 Wn. 2d 763,
9 771, 783 P.2d 78 (1989) (Washington’s long-arm statute “extends jurisdiction to the limit
10 of federal due process.”); Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (The
11 due process clause grants the court jurisdiction over defendants who have “certain
12 minimum contacts . . . such that maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional
13 notions of fair play and substantial justice.’”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“The district
14 court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district
15 shall dismiss . . . .”); 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
16

Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be

17 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Plaintiff shall file a written
18 response, not to exceed five (5) pages, no later than seven (7) days from the date of this
19 Order. Failure to file a response will result in dismissal of the action.
20

Dated this 22nd day of March, 2017.

21

A

22
23

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE- 2