Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mary Pauline Rivera v. Marten Transport Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 15, 2011

MARY PAULINE RIVERA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARTEN TRANSPORT SERVICES,LTD,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Janis L. SammartinoUnited States District Judge

ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND (2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Doc. No. 2.)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the instant complaint along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. A Federal Court may authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that she is unable to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff is current employed as a substitute teacher. (Memo. ISO Motion at 2.) Her employment is on an as-needed basis and she has had only one substitute job since late August 2010. (Id.) Her only other source of income is $500 she receives each month from Marten Rivera. (Id.) Her assets are limited to a checking account containing $4.80, a 2000 Honda Accord, and a non-functioning 1992 Honda Civic. (Id.) She also carries $47,000 of debt. (Id.) Based on this information, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review. Dismissal is appropriate if the complaint is "frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek[s] monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001).

The instant complaint fails to state a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction and should be dismissed. Plaintiff alleges this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires, among other things, complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. Fid. and Guar. Life Ins. Co. v. Albertson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44689, at *3. Plaintiff alleges that she is a citizen of California. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is a corporation incorporated in California and has a principal place of business in Wisconsin. A corporation is a citizen of both the state in which it has been incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Based on Plaintiff's allegations, Plaintiff, a citizen of California, and Defendant, also a citizen of California, are not completely diverse. This Court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to diversity jurisdiction.

Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 14 days of this Order being electronically docketed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110315

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.