The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiffs Jaysen J. Turner Sr. and Julie L. Turner have requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).
Plaintiffs Julie and Jaysen Turner Sr. have submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that these plaintiffs are unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
It appears from the application to proceed in forma pauperis that plaintiffs have three children who are also named as plaintiffs. The available documents do not indicate whether plaintiffs' children are minors, in which case they may not proceed in this action pro se or represented by their parents. Minor children must be represented by legal counsel. The rule is protective -- where minors "have claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to trained legal assistance so their rights may be fully protected." Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, "a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer." Ibid.
Plaintiffs will therefore be given thirty days within which to obtain a lawyer to represent their minor children, or to clarify that the children who proceed as plaintiffs in this action are adults. Alternatively, assuming the children are minors, parents may amend their complaint in order to proceed on their own without their minor children.*fn1
Determining plaintiffs may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.
A claim is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984); Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989).
A complaint, or portion thereof, fails to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt there is no set of supporting facts entitling plaintiff to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true its allegations, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe it in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 ( 1969).
Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1230.
The complaint is very difficult to decipher but plaintiffs appear to allege that the University of California Davis caused harm to their disabled child, "J.T.," through "malicious arbitrary retaliations, failures to act, abusive nature, neglect, fraud and current ongoing oppression of the family unit...." Compl. at 2. The complaint refers to California statutes and the state constitution, but contains no federal claims, other than a reference to due process in regard to the Lanterman Act, which is a state statute, and a passing reference to the 13th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1 provides that the judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court, "and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Congress therefore confers jurisdiction upon federal district courts, as limited by U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 697-99, 112 S.Ct. 2206, 2212 (1992). Since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, a case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts unless proven otherwise. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 376-78, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L.Ed. 2d 391 (1994). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. See Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products,Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996).
The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer "federal question" and "diversity" jurisdiction, respectively. Statutes which regulate specific subject matter may also confer federal jurisdiction. See generally, W.W. Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J. Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 2:5. Unless a complaint presents a plausible assertion of a substantial federal right, a federal court does not have jurisdiction. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 776 (1945). A federal claim which is so insubstantial as to be patently without merit cannot serve as the basis for federal jurisdiction. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 587-38, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1379-80 (1974).
The complaint must allege the basis for this court's jurisdiction. A less stringent examination is afforded pro se pleadings, Haines, 404 U.S. at 520, 92 S.Ct. at 595, but simple reference to federal law does not create subject-matter jurisdiction. Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co., 53 F.3d 690, 694 (5th Cir.1995). Subject-matter jurisdiction is created only by pleading a cause of action within the court's original jurisdiction. Id.
Plaintiffs are advised that it is not enough to merely refer to the federal constitution. They must assert a specific violation of a specific federal statute or a specific protection provided by the federal constitution. If plaintiffs do not intend to include a federal claim in their ...