United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT WITH
PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 1)
MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Hussein Ali proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this
complaint against Defendants Nadya Jawad, Fawzi Sood, Jamal
Taha, and Nasr Jawa for “aiding and abetting, ”
conversion, and defamation.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an
initial review of the complaint to determine if it states a
cognizable claim. The Court must dismiss a complaint or
portion thereof if it determines that the action has raised
claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious, "
"fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, " or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
"Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof,
that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at
any time if the court determines that . . . the action or
appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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 (2007)).
Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. Facial
plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a
defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations
are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
allegations may be summarized essentially as follows.
gave $22, 000 cash to non-party Najeh Jawad under the
assumption the funds were a loan. The loan was not paid back.
According to Plaintiff, Defendants conspired with Najeh Jawad
to defraud Plaintiff out of the money by receiving the funds
from Jawad. This conspiracy to defraud occurred from December
2009 through January 2013. Additionally, from October 2013 to
October 2015, Defendants defamed Plaintiff by accusing
Plaintiff of being involved in illegal activities and stating
he was dishonest and professionally incompetent.
Lack of Jurisdiction Federal courts are courts of
limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject
matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those
cases authorized by the United States Constitution and
Congress. Generally, such cases involve diversity of
citizenship or a federal question, or cases in which the
United States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Finley v. United
States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989). Federal courts are
presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions.
Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Lack of subject matter
jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the Court
sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods.,
Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). "Nothing
is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what its power rests upon.
Without jurisdiction it is nothing." In re
Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1988).
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) grants federal district courts
original jurisdiction over civil actions between
“citizens of different States” where the amount
in controversy exceeds $75, 000. To show state citizenship
for the purposes of the statute, a party must be a citizen of
the United States and be domiciled in the state. Kantor
v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th
Plaintiff alleges that he and all of the Defendants reside in
California. There are no facts to suggest any party is
domiciled in another state, and thus there ...