United States District Court, E.D. California
KARIMA K. ALI, Plaintiff,
ASURA INSURANCE SERVICES, Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS (ECF NO.
Karima K. Ali (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro
se, filed a Complaint on May 20, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) The
Complaint alleges a breach of contract by Asura Insurance
Services. Id. Plaintiff alleges that she
“originally filed this complaint in the Superior Court
of Fresno” and is filing the current complaint to
“try[ ] to mov[e] the process forward” because
Fresno County Superior Court has not made sufficient progress
in bringing her case to resolution. Plaintiff also seeks to
proceed in forma pauperis in this action. The Court
has screened the Complaint and Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis and makes its recommendations herein, namely,
that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied and the Complaint be
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
general rule, all parties instituting any civil action, suit,
or proceeding in a district court must pay a filing fee. 28
U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, the Court may authorize the
commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees
and costs of security therefor, by a person who submits an
affidavit that . . . the person is unable to pay such fees or
give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Therefore, an action may proceed despite a failure to prepay
the filing fee only if leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted by the Court. See Rodriguez v.
Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).
Ninth Circuit has held that “permission to proceed in
forma pauperis is itself a matter of privilege and not right;
denial of in forma pauperis status does not violate the
applicant’s right to due process.” Franklin
v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984). The
Court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. O’Laughlin v.
Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990) (a
“district court may deny leave to proceed [in forma
pauperis] at the outset if it appears from the face of
the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or
without merit.”). Because, as explained below,
Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous and without merit,
the application to proceed in forma pauperis is
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct a review
of a pro se complaint to determine whether it
“state[s] a claim on which relief may be granted,
” is “frivolous or malicious, ” or
“seek[s] monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” If the Court determines that
the complaint fails to state a claim, it must be dismissed.
Id. Leave to amend may be granted to the extent that
the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment.
Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.
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 (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.
determining whether a complaint states an actionable claim,
the Court must accept the allegations in the complaint as
true, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hospital,
425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe pro se pleadings
liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff,
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000),
and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor.
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held
to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342
(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints
should continue to be liberally construed after
alleges that she initially filed this Complaint in Fresno
County Superior Court on April 3, 2012 and that the case is
currently pending in that court. She alleges that she entered
into a contract with Defendant to market health care plans
but was apparently not paid commissions that she believes she
was entitled to receive. Based on this conduct, she asserts
causes of action for fraud, breach of contract, conversion,
negligence, “fraud and deceit by intentional
conversion, ” violation of California Business and
Professions Code § 17200, “loss of opportunity,
” and defamation.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent
or general subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can
adjudicate only those cases which the United States
Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375
(1994). To proceed in federal court, a plaintiff’s
pleading must establish the existence of subject matter
jurisdiction. Generally, there are two potential bases for
federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question
jurisdiction, or (2) diversity jurisdiction.
is advised that “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