Smith v. Seene
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se complaint alleging five counts of violations of California state law, including breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, where the plaintiff claimed federal question jurisdiction but failed to plead facts supporting any federal statutory claims. The court sua sponte dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granted the plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Sua sponte dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction“For the reasons set forth above, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the complaint alleged only state law claims (breach of fiduciary duty, California Probate Codes, unlawful detainer, Welfare & Institution Code, and fraud) and that the plaintiff failed to plead facts supporting the federal statutes cited (42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 1621). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction requires that the complaint arise under federal law. Since no valid federal claim was pleaded, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The dismissal without prejudice is appropriate to allow the plaintiff to attempt to cure the jurisdictional defect by amending the complaint to include valid federal claims or to establish diversity jurisdiction if applicable. |
Granting of thirty days to file an amended complaint“The Court GRANTS Plaintiff thirty (30) days from the filed date of the order to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies of pleading identified above.” | agree with court Allowing a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure jurisdictional deficiencies is a common and equitable practice, particularly when the dismissal is without prejudice. This aligns with the liberal construction of pro se pleadings and the goal of resolving cases on the merits where possible. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the legal standard for subject matter jurisdiction, citing appropriate Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authorities to support the court's sua sponte authority to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The factual finding that the complaint alleged only state law claims without supporting facts for the cited federal statutes is sufficient to support the conclusion that federal question jurisdiction is absent. The dismissal without prejudice and the allowance for amendment are procedurally sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL SMITH, Case No.: 20CV173 GPC(JLB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 13 v. COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 14 KENNETH J. SENNE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Michael Smith, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging five counts 18 alleging violations of California law. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) Plaintiff alleges the ourt has 19 federal question jurisdiction. (Id. ¶ 1.) 20 Discussion 21 The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction and the burden rests on the party 22 asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 23 (1994). It possesses only that power authorized by the Constitution or a statute. See 24 Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). It is constitutionally 25 required to raise issues related to federal subject matter jurisdiction, and may do so sua 26 sponte. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93–94 (1998); see Nevada v. 27 Bank of America Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2012) (it is well established that “a 28 court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during 1 || the pendency of the action, even on appeal.”) Accordingly, federal courts are under a 2 || continuing duty to confirm their jurisdictional power and are “obliged to inquire sua 3 || sponte whenever a doubt arises as to [its] existence... .” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. 4 || of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977) (citations omitted). “Ifthe court determines 5 || at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” 6 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 7 There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question 8 || jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 9 || 1332. A district court has federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under 10 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 11 Here, the complaint alleges federal question jurisdiction and generally cites to 28 12 ||/U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 1621(1). (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. {ff 13 || 1, 2, 3.) Yet, the complaint does not assert any causes of action with supporting facts 14 || under these federal statutes. On the caption of the complaint, Plaintiff lists five causes of 15 || action for two counts of breach of fiduciary duty, violation of California Probate Codes 16 || and unlawful detainer codes, violation of California Welfare & Institution Code section 17 || 15627.5, and fraud on the court. Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the Court 18 federal question jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. 19 ||P. 12(h)(3). 20 Conclusion 21 For the reasons set forth above, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES the Complaint 22 || without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff 23 || thirty (30) days from the filed date of the order to file an amended complaint curing the 24 || deficiencies of pleading identified above. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: January 29, 2020 2 27 Hon. athe Ck 28 United States District Judge