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

Download PDF
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-

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?