United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc.
is proceeding pro se in this civil
action. (Doc. 1). On May 16, 2016, he filed a
complaint against: Chase Bank; Wonderly Correia, a manager a
Chase Bank; Bank of America; and Wells Fargo Bank
("Defendants"). (Doc. 1, pg. 2-3). The facts of the
complaint are unclear but seem to allege that the Defendants
are taking money out of several of Plaintiff's bank
accounts without authorization or explanation. (Doc. 1, pgs.
4-6). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and it
appears that this Court's jurisdiction is not proper.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint with leave to
file an amended complaint.
explained to Plaintiff in the Court's prior order (Doc.
5), federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
Kokonnen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994). The court may raise the absence of subject
matter jurisdiction sua sponte, and must dismiss an
action if it determines at any time that it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (if a court
determines at any time that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, it must dismiss action); Steel v. Citizens
for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998)
(court bound to ask and answer for itself, whether it has
jurisdiction, even when not otherwise suggested); Chapman
v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 954 (9th
Cir. 2011) (en banc) (The Court is required to examine its
own jurisdiction sua sponte and to dismiss the
complaint if jurisdiction was lacking); Fiedler v.
Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78 (9th Cir. 1983) (federal court
may dismiss sua sponte if jurisdiction is lacking).
contends that jurisdiction is based on a federal question.
(Doc. 1, pg. 4). However, "a case ‘arises
under' federal law either where federal law creates the
cause of action or ‘where the vindication of a right
under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of
federal law.'" Republican Party of Guam v.
Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers
Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1983)). The presence or
absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the
"well-pleaded complaint rule." Caterpillar,
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under the
well-pleaded complaint rule, "federal jurisdiction
exists only when a federal question is presented on the face
of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint."
Plaintiff's complaint merely alleges, "Chase Bank
charged loan [sic] from 2004 to 2007 and been taking money
out of my account." (Doc. 1, pg. 4). After listing the
amounts in the accounts at held at Chase Bank, Bank of
America, and Wells Fargo, Plaintiff states, " I know
that much is right but I don't know how much more is
missing because they stop [sic] sending my statements.
Well[sic] Fargo are riding[sic] checks out of my
account." (Doc. 1, pg. 5).
complaint does not contain any additional facts and does not
contain any allegation or citation to law arising under the
Constitution, federal law, or treaties of the United States.
Plaintiff is advised that to state a claim, a complaint must
contain "a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of
a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50 (2009) (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct.
1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth
"sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim that is plausible on its
face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual
allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not.
Id. at 678. In this case, Plaintiff has not given
the Court enough facts or cited any legal authority to state
Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
federal district courts also have original jurisdiction over
civil actions in diversity cases "where the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000" and
where the matter is between "citizens of
different states." 8 U.S.C. § 1332; Abrego
Abrego et al. v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684
(9th Cir. 2006). "Subject matter jurisdiction based upon
diversity of citizenship requires that no defendant
have the same citizenship as any plaintiff." 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332 (a); Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better
Env't, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir.2001) (per
curiam), abrogated on other grounds by Hertz Corp. v.
Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S.Ct. 1181 (2010). "A
plaintiff suing in federal court must show in his pleading,
affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is
essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so,
the court ... on discovering the [defect], must dismiss the
case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment."
Id. (quoting Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S.
Plaintiff is citizen of California and it appears that
Defendant Correia, a teller at Chase Bank, is also a
California citizen. Because both parties are citizens of
California, diversity jurisdiction cannot be established.
Since Plaintiff has not established federal question or
diversity jurisdiction, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's
complaint based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Leave to Amend
Court is dismissing Plaintiff's case without prejudice
based on a lack of jurisdiction as outlined above. However,
Plaintiff is given leave to amend his claims and file an
amended complaint to cure the jurisdictional
defect. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended
complaint, he shall carefully consider the guidelines set
forth in this order and only file an amended complaint if he
believes he can allege cognizable federal claims or establish
diversity jurisdiction. If Plaintiff files an amended
complaint Plaintiff must clearly organize what claim is being
brought against each defendant, the legal basis for each
claim, and he must meet the plausibility standard outlined
above. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice." Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim
that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 129
S.Ct. at 1949-50. Any amended complaint shall bear the case
number assigned to this action and be labeled "Amended
Complaint." Plaintiff is hereby notified that any
amended complaint supersedes the original complaint,
Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907, n. 1
(9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and must be complete in itself
without reference to the original complaint. See
Local Rule 220.
reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Any amended complaint
shall be filed no later than July 30, 2016, and be no more
than twenty-five (25) pages. Failure to file an amended
complaint by ...