Zinia Ezzet Boutros v. Elon Musk
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a First Amended Complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff that failed to allege any basis for federal jurisdiction or a cognizable cause of action. The court dismissed the action with prejudice and directed the Clerk to close the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action with prejudice“For the above reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that federal courts are creatures of limited jurisdiction and must ensure jurisdiction exists before proceeding. The plaintiff was previously given notice and an opportunity to cure the jurisdictional defect, and the amended complaint failed to do so. Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate when a pro se plaintiff fails to cure a jurisdictional defect after being given leave to amend. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the plaintiff's failure to meet the burden of establishing jurisdiction, cites the relevant statutes and case law, and notes that the plaintiff was given prior notice and an opportunity to cure the defect. The dismissal with prejudice is a standard remedy for failure to cure a jurisdictional defect after leave to amend.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZINIA EZZET BOUTROS, Case No.: 3:26-cv-03124-JES-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 13 v. LACK OF JURISDICTION
14 ELON MUSK,
15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 On May 19, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Zinia Ezzet Boutros (“Plaintiff) brought this action 21 against Elon Musk (“Defendant”) alleging that Defendant harmed her through illegal force, 22 including forbidden psychic reading and soul reading. ECF No. 1. The Court dismissed the 23 complaint sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that Plaintiff had not met her 24 burden to state a basis for jurisdiction in federal court. See ECF No. 3. The Court granted 25 Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing this issue, and warned her 26 that a failure to cure this deficiency would result in dismissal of the entire action with 27 prejudice. Id. 28 Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on July 8, 2026. ECF No. 4 (“FAC”). 2 || The FAC does not contain an explanation of any basis for jurisdiction, such as federal 3 || question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 4 11386, 392 (1987) (setting forth the requirements of federal question and diversity 5 jurisdiction); see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Just like in the initial complaint, Plaintiff 6 ||does not state a cognizable cause of action, allege diversity of the parties, or allege an 7 ||amount in controversy. See generally, FAC; Cf ECF No. 1. As the Court previously 8 || explained, federal courts are required to determine whether jurisdiction exists, and may not 9 || proceed without jurisdiction. See ECF No. 3 (citing Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, 10 || 878 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2017). Because the FAC comes no closer to stating a basis 11 || for jurisdiction than the first complaint, despite the Court’s order, dismissal with prejudice 12 ||is warranted. 13 For the above reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice. The Clerk 14 || of the Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. 15 IT ISSO ORDERED. 16 17 || Dated: July 13, 2026 Smet 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28