Tina Louise Roberts v. San Diego Police Dispatcher 8353, 8395, Nesliet Badge 7689
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the plaintiff failed to respond to the order or establish a basis for jurisdiction. The court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and directed the clerk to close the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction“Thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and sua sponte DISMISSES the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the plaintiff failed to establish either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff's claims were based on state law, and the parties were citizens of the same state. The court's sua sponte dismissal is appropriate when jurisdiction is lacking and the plaintiff has had an opportunity to respond but failed to do so. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the law regarding subject matter jurisdiction. It cites appropriate Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authorities to support the conclusion that the court lacks jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to establish federal question or diversity jurisdiction. The court properly noted the plaintiff's failure to respond to the order to show cause.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TINA LOUISE ROBERTS, Case No.: 3:26-cv-03619-JES-SBC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 13 v. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 14 SAN DIEGO POLICE DISPATCHER 8353, 8395, NESLIET BADGE 7689, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On July 8, 2026, the Court issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) ordering Plaintiff 19 Tina Louise Roberts (“Plaintiff”) to show cause why this action should not be dismissed 20 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 5. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a 21 written response by July 31, 2026. Id. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to respond 22 to the OSC may result in the case being dismissed. Id. 23 On July 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed a supplemental document, Civil Cover Sheet 24 indicating the basis of jurisdiction as U.S Government Defendant, but failed to file a written 25 response addressing subject matter jurisdiction as ordered. See ECF No. 6. However, the 26 United States Government is not a plaintiff or defendant in this case. See ECF No. 1-1. 27 Further, Plaintiff alleged the violation of California Government Code § 945.6, but no 28 1 || federal statutes and the parties are all citizens of the same state. See ECF No. 6. On July 2 || 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a document seeking to add a Defendant to the case, but once again 3 || did not address the Court’s OSC. ECF No. 7. 4 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 5 ||(2013). Federal subject matter jurisdiction arises in two ways, either under 28 U.S.C. § 6 || 1331 for federal question jurisdiction or under § 1332 for diversity jurisdiction. Arbaugh 7 \|v. Y & HCorp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). Federal courts are constitutionally required to 8 issues of federal subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary, and must satisfy 9 || itself of jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of a case. /d. at 514; Ruhrgas AG vy. 10 || Marathon Oil Co., 625 U.S. 574, 577 (1999). “A plaintiff suing in a federal court must 11 show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to 12 || federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court, on having the defect called to its 13 || attention or on discovering the same, must dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected 14 amendment.” 7osco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th 15 || Cir. 2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by 16 || Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 82-83 (2010). 17 Thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and sua sponte DISMISSES the 18 || case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 51 Dated: August 18, 2026 “4 we Se 4) 22 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 3 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28