Snow v. Chula Vista and Escondido Parole Office/s

Opinion

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 AARON JOSEPH SNOW, CASE NO. 21cv622-LAB-KSC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER: 12 vs. 13 1) GRANTING MOTION TO CHULA VISTA AND ESCONDIDO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 PAROLE OFFICE/S, [Dkt. 2]; and 15 Defendants. 2) ORDER DISMISSING 16 COMPLAINT WITHOUT 17 PREJUDICE 19 20 Plaintiff Aaron Snow filed this lawsuit against the Chula Vista and 21 Escondido Parole Offices, alleging breach of contract and seeking to proceed 22 in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 23 Snow’s IFP application states that his average monthly income over the 24 previous year was approximately $956 “after deductions.” (Dkt. 2.) His 25 expenses vary, but amount to roughly the same number each month. He is 26 unemployed and has no cash or other assets. The Court finds that Snow is 27 unable to pay the filing fee, so his motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. But 1 a claim for relief, it is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2 Federal courts, unlike state courts, face strict limitations on their 3 jurisdiction. The Court is required to confirm its own jurisdiction, sua sponte if 4 necessary, whenever a doubt arises. Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Ed. 5 v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977). As the party invoking the Court’s 6 jurisdiction, Snow bears the burden of establishing it. See Steel Co. v. Citizens 7 for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103–04 (1998). Among other things, he is 8 required to include in his pleading a “short and plain statement of the grounds 9 for the court’s jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 10 Snow doesn’t meet this burden. Snow’s lone claim is for breach of 11 contract, a state law claim, so federal question jurisdiction isn’t available. See 12 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Pan Am. Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court of Del. In and 13 For New Castle County, 366 U.S. 656, 661, 81 S.Ct. 1303, 6 L.Ed.2d 584 14 (1961) (breach of contract claims arise under state law). He doesn’t allege facts 15 to support diversity jurisdiction, either: If Defendants are agencies of the 16 California state government (as they appear to be), they’re California citizens, 17 and the California address Snow provides as his own suggests that he may be 18 a California citizen, too.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). And no 19 other statutory basis for jurisdiction appears to apply. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 20 1333-1369. 21 Moreover, when a plaintiff is permitted to proceed IFP, the Court is 22 required to screen the complaint, dismissing it if it fails to state a claim. See 23 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) 24 (en banc). In applying Rule 12(b)(6) to determine whether the Complaint states 25 1 The address alone, if alleged to be Snow’s residence, isn’t enough to 26 establish citizenship. Instead, if Snow intends to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, he must allege his residence in a state and his intention to remain 27 or return there. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 1 a claim, the Court makes a preliminary evaluation of a party’s pleading and 2 tests only whether the pleading provides “a short and plain statement of the 3 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant 4 fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic 5 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal marks and citation 6 omitted). The required short and plain statement “does not need detailed 7 factual allegations,” only “factual allegations . . . enough to raise a right to relief 8 above the speculative level . . . on the assumption that all the allegations in the 9 complaint are true.” Id. (internal marks and citations omitted). The Court must 10 make all reasonable inferences that can be made in the plaintiff’s favor. Dahlia 11 v. Rodriguez, 735 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2013). 12 At this stage, Snow appears to assert only a claim for breach of contract. 13 (See Dkt. 1 (“While this complaint is written as ‘BREACH OF CONTRACT’, . . . 14 the plaintiff . . . will bring into account other offenses made by the titled 15 defendants”.).) That claim requires Snow to allege facts establishing: (1) the 16 existence of a contract; (2) Snow’s performance of his duties under that 17 contract or an excuse for nonperformance; (3) Defendants’ breach of their 18 contractual duties; and (4) resulting damages to Snow. Oasis West Realty, LLC 19 v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811, 821 (2011). The Complaint doesn’t allege that 20 Snow and Defendants are parties to any contract—to the contrary, Snow’s 21 relationship with Defendants appears to be that of a parolee under the 22 Defendants’ supervision. And while the Court must construe the Complaint 23 liberally, it finds no factual allegations that point to any federal constitutional or 24 statutory violation sufficiently to put the Court or Defendants on notice of such 25 a claim. 26 Because the Complaint fails both to invoke the Court’s subject matter 27 jurisdiction and to state a claim for which relief can be granted, it is DISMISSED 1 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Snow believes he can fix these deficiencies, he 2 || may file an amended complaint no later than May 31, 2021. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 || Dated: April 14, 2021 bi 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28