Wolfclan v. Kinlen et al

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. Show Cause Response due by 9/12/2024. (TF)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

ECHOTA C. WOLFCLAN,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

Case No. C24-1260-JLR-MLP
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
THOMAS J. KINLEN, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiff filed this action on August 15, 2024, asserting causes of action for negligence,

15

tortious failure to keep health and safety, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and outrage.

16

(Dkt. # 1 at 22-26.) Plaintiff’s civil cover sheet states that the action is based on federal question

17

jurisdiction. (Dkt. # 5.) However, though the complaint’s opening section pertaining to

18

jurisdiction includes an allegation that Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were

19

violated (dkt. # 1 at 1-2), Plaintiff does not assert in the body of his pleading any federal causes

20

of action, and instead asserts only state law claims. (Id. at 22-26.) Nor is there a basis for

21

diversity jurisdiction since the complaint and civil cover sheet do not allege complete diversity of

22

the parties. (See dkt. ## 1, 5.) While Plaintiff previously filed in this Court a related action

23

alleging constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Wolfclan v. Menesses, et al., C23-

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1

1

5938-JLR-MLP), and is currently seeking to consolidate the two actions (id., dkt. # 62), it

2

appears this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action.

3

Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter

4

jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

5

546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter

6

jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Accordingly, dismissal

7

of this action is required if the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.

8
9

Based on the record before the Court, it appears federal question jurisdiction is lacking
and no other basis for jurisdiction has been alleged. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show

10

cause by September 12, 2024, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter

11

jurisdiction.

12
13
14

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to the parties and to the Honorable
James L. Robart.
Dated this 29th day of August, 2024.

15
16

A

17

MICHELLE L. PETERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2