Filed: Aug. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 12, 2019
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff Allal Amrani has been granted in forma pauperis ("IFP") status in this matter and is proceeding pro se. Dkt. #3. On several occasions, the Court has expressed concern over whether this matter is within the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Dkts. #14 and #38. Several defendants have also questioned whether this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Rook
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff Allal Amrani has been granted in forma pauperis ("IFP") status in this matter and is proceeding pro se. Dkt. #3. On several occasions, the Court has expressed concern over whether this matter is within the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Dkts. #14 and #38. Several defendants have also questioned whether this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooke..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff Allal Amrani has been granted in forma pauperis ("IFP") status in this matter and is proceeding pro se. Dkt. #3. On several occasions, the Court has expressed concern over whether this matter is within the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Dkts. #14 and #38. Several defendants have also questioned whether this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman1 doctrine. Dkt. #27 at 6-7. Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to show cause why this case falls within the Court's subject matter jurisdiction.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that a case is properly filed in federal court. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001). This burden, at the pleading stage, must be met by pleading sufficient allegations to show a proper basis for the federal court to assert subject matter jurisdiction over the action. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936). A plaintiff may establish either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.2 Federal question jurisdiction is established by pleading a "colorable claim `rising under' the Constitution or laws of the United States." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006) (citations omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Establishing subject matter jurisdiction is paramount. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). "When a requirement goes to subject-matter jurisdiction, courts are obligated to consider sua sponte issues that the parties have disclaimed or have not presented [as] . . . [s]ubject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived or forfeited." Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012). To this end, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 requires that "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). Similarly, where a plaintiff is proceeding IFP, a court will dismiss a complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
As the Court has previously noted, Plaintiff has not established that he validly raises a federal question. Dkt. #14 at 7. Accordingly, the Court finds and ORDERS:
1. That each party shall file a short and plain statement, not to exceed six (6) double-spaced pages, explaining whether this Court does or does not have subject matter jurisdiction. This should include:
a. Identification of the laws or statutes giving rise to federal question jurisdiction, if any;
b. Analysis of whether Plaintiff has standing to assert those claims;
c. How a defendant violated the laws or statutes giving rise to federal question jurisdiction; and
d. Analysis of whether those claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
2. Responses are due no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order.
3. The Court will take no further action in this case until responses are filed.
4. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to file a response will result in dismissal of this action.
