U.S. Public v. People in US
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se civil action filed by plaintiffs against various defendants and issued an Order to Show Cause regarding subject matter jurisdiction, to which the plaintiffs did not respond. The court dismissed the action without prejudice sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction“Hence, this Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that it has an independent obligation to ensure subject matter jurisdiction exists. The plaintiffs failed to allege federal question jurisdiction (no federal law violations) and failed to establish diversity jurisdiction (plaintiffs are California citizens, defendant citizenship not alleged, and amount in controversy not alleged to exceed $75,000). Because the plaintiffs failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause, dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate procedural remedy to allow them to amend their complaint if they can cure the jurisdictional defects. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the legal standard for subject matter jurisdiction, citing appropriate Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority regarding the court's independent obligation to verify jurisdiction. The factual findings regarding the lack of federal question and the deficiencies in the diversity jurisdiction allegations (citizenship and amount in controversy) are supported by the record described in the order. The procedural step of issuing an Order to Show Cause before dismissing is appropriate for pro se litigants.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 U.S. PUBLIC, et al., Case No. 24-cv-0369-BAS-VET 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 13 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 14 PEOPLE IN U.S., et al., JURISDICTION 15 Defendants.
17 On February 26, 2024, Plaintiffs Steven Cross and Sandara Jenkins commenced this 18 action pro se against Defendants Ann Busby, Liz Hackett, the California Department of 19 Real Estate Governors, and Does 1 to 1 billion. (ECF No. 1.) On March 27, 2024, the 20 Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack 21 of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiffs have not responded to the Order. 22 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 23 Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized by 24 Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Id. (internal 25 citations omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, 26 and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting 27 jurisdiction.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 28 I It is well-established that “a district court’s duty to establish subject matter 2 ||jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’ arguments.” See United Inv’rs Life Ins. 3 || Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004). Courts may consider the 4 ||issue sua sponte. Demery yv. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1149 n.8 (9th Cir. 1984). 5 || Indeed, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “district courts have an ‘independent 6 || obligation to address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas 7 Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (quoting United States v. S. Cal. Edison 8 || Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972 (E.D. Cal. 2004)). 9 Plaintiffs fail to allege any violations of the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties of 10 United States. Accordingly, based on what has been plead, Plaintiffs appear to lack 11 |/jurisdiction under federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs also fail to adequately allege 12 || there is complete diversity of citizenship. From Plaintiffs’ ex parte communication to the 13 || Court, it appears Plaintiffs are citizens of California as they list a California address. (ECF 14 ||No. 5.) Plaintiffs have not alleged the citizenship of the other named Defendants. 15 || Moreover, Plaintiffs fail to plead the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000 16 |/and fails to allege any facts that could reasonably establish this threshold amount in 17 ||}controversy. Without this information and without diversity of citizenship, diversity 18 |/jurisdiction appears lacking. 19 Because Plaintiffs have not responded to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, the Court 20 || finds the interests of justice weigh in favor of dismissal without prejudice. Hence, this 21 ||Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice sua sponte for lack of subject matter 22 || jurisdiction. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 /\ yy 25 || DATED: April 18, 2024 (yillig (Agha 6 26 United States District Judge 27 28