United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Madiha Miner, proceeding without counsel, commenced this
action, filed an amended complaint, and requested leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 6.)
federal court has an independent duty to assess whether
federal subject matter jurisdiction exists, whether or not
the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life
Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967
(9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had a
duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the
removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the
issue or not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys.,
Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). The court must
sua sponte dismiss the case if, at any time, it determines
that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P.
the substantiality doctrine, the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction when the question presented is too
insubstantial to consider.” Cook v. Peter Kiewit
Sons Co., 775 F.2d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-39 (1974)).
“The claim must be ‘so insubstantial,
implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court or
otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a
federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the District
Court, whatever may be the ultimate resolution of the federal
issues on the merits.'” Id. (quoting
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S.
661, 666 (1974)); see also Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d
477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (“a district court may, at any
time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint
are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial,
frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to
filed a complaint on April 22, 2019, and then immediately
amended it to include additional allegations. (See ECF Nos.
1, 2.) In her initial complaint, plaintiff sued defendant
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(“HUD”) for discrimination and invasion of
privacy. (EFC No. 1.) Plaintiff writes the phrases
“discrimination, ” “invading our privacy,
” and “Freedom from Discrimination” in her
complaint and references the First, Thirteenth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as
well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Id.) This
complaint provides no factual information as to her claims.
amended complaint, Plaintiff appears to further widen the
scope of her complaint “to include U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development in Washington to State, their
prosecutors, deputies, and all others . . . .” (ECF No.
2.) She asserts the prosecutors “maliciously harassing
plaintiff and as well as her family in Washington State and
California State, ” and re- references the
constitutional and statutory provisions from her initial
complaint. (Id.) She again provides no factual basis
for these conclusory assertions. (Id.)
undersigned finds the assertions made in the first amended
complaint (and, construing the pleadings liberally, the
initial complaint's assertions as well) to be
insubstantial, implausible, and devoid of merit as to not
involve a federal controversy within the court's
jurisdiction. Cook, 775 F.2d at 1035; see,
e.g., Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075
(9th Cir. 1986) (“Prosecutors are also entitled to
absolute immunity from section 1983 claims.”).
the court, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and applicable case law, ordinarily liberally
grants leave to amend, especially to pro se
litigants, the nature of plaintiffs complaint here strongly
suggests that granting leave to amend would be futile.
See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336,
339 (9th Cir. 1996).
AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ORDER
it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to the substantiality doctrine;
Plaintiffs motion to cease and desist (ECF No. 3), motion for
judgment (ECF No. 4), motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
5), and motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) be
denied as moot; and
Clerk of the Court be ordered to CLOSE this case.
findings and recommendations are submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen
(14) days after being served with these findings and
recommendations, any party may file written objections with
the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to
the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with
the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the
objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
objections within the ...