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)

Download PDF
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

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?