Barton, Jr v. Lake Whatcom Residential and Treatment Center

Filing 12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE directing plaintiff to show cause within 30 days by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS) cc plaintiff

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

_______________________________________
)
HERMAN LEE BARTON, JR.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
LAKE WHATCOM RESIDENTIAL AND
)
TREATMENT CENTER,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)

No. C17-0861RSL
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

14

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On August 14, 2017, the Court accepted
15

for filing plaintiff’s complaint alleging that the Lake Whatcom Residential and Treatment Center
16

is overcharged his community health plan for the services he is receiving. He wants defendant to
17

charge only $300 per month so that he can apply for the Work First program with the Social
18

Security Administration, but alleges that his health plan was charged $9,857.01 for April 2017
19

and $9,268.78 for May 2017.
20

Having reviewed the record as a whole under the standards articulated in 28 U.S.C.
21

§ 1915(e)(2) and having construed the allegations of the complaint liberally (see Bernhardt v.
22

Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003)), the Court finds that plaintiff’s
23

complaint is deficient. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), the complaint must contain “a short
24

and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Plaintiff has not alleged facts
25

giving rise to a plausible cause of action cognizable under federal law, nor does it appear that the
26
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

parties are residents of different states and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See

2

28 U.S.C. § 1331 (original jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law); 28 U.S.C. § 1332

3

(federal jurisdiction extends to “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds . . .

4

$75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of different States.”). The party asserting jurisdiction has

5

the burden of establishing all jurisdictional facts. See U.S. v. Orr Water Ditch Co., 600 F.3d

6

1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010); Fed R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it

7

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action”). Plaintiff has failed to

8

allege, much less establish, the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction.

9

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the

10

complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall, within

11

thirty (30) days of this order, file an amended complaint which establishes this Court’s

12

jurisdiction. Such a complaint would either (a) allege a cause of action based on a violation of

13

federal law, or (b) show that the parties are diverse (i.e., that the parties are residents of different

14

states) and that plaintiff is entitled to recover at least $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1)–(4)

15

(examples of “diverse” citizenship). If an acceptable amended complaint is not filed within the

16

time proscribed, this action will be dismissed without prejudice.

17
18
19

The Clerk of Court is directed to note this Order to Show Cause on the Court’s calendar
for Friday, September 22, 2017.

20
21

DATED this 17th day of August, 2017.

A
Robert S. Lasnik

22
23

United States District Judge

24
25
26
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

-2-