United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
October 22, 2019, plaintiff filed this action in pro se and
paid the filing fee. ECF No. 1. The case was accordingly
referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule
302(c)(21). On November 13, 2019, the undersigned notified
plaintiff that upon review of the complaint it appeared that
this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear
plaintiff's case. ECF No. 9. The court ordered plaintiff
to show cause by November 27, 2019 why this case should not
be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Id. On November 15, 2019 plaintiff filed a document
entitled “Knowledge and Notice.” ECF No. 10. The
court construes this as a response to the order to show
cause. On November 21, 2019, plaintiff filed a document
entitled “claimant order to show cause for zero balance
account because of federal question to diversity of
jurisdiction from two citizenships or entities of a several
states civilian registrar and a bank city reserve district
federal trade commission employees' securities company
citizen to the federal reserve system” ECF No. 11. The
court construes this filing as a further response to the
court's order, though plaintiff also purports to
“move this court for an order to show cause why
Defendants, Bank-City out of Sacramento County, should not
issue Zero-Balance Account to avoid further ‘RESTRAINT
OF TRADE' violations to Agent of FTC.” Having
considered plaintiff's responses, the undersigned has
determined that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear this
case and recommends dismissal. To the extent that the
document at ECF No. 11 is intended to be a motion, it is
DENIED on the grounds that it is incoherent and frivolous.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.”
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 377, (1994). In 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a),
“Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction over two
general types of cases: cases that “aris[e]
under” federal law, § 1331, and cases in which the
amount in controversy exceeds $ 75, 000 and there is
diversity of citizenship among the parties, § 1332(a).
These jurisdictional grants are known as
“federal-question jurisdiction” and
“diversity jurisdiction, ” respectively. Home
Depot U.S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743, 1746
(2019), reh'g denied, No. 17-1471, 2019 WL
3538074 (U.S. Aug. 5, 2019).
complaint before the court does not clearly allege either
diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. ECF
No. 1. Although plaintiff appears to list his place of birth
as Pennsylvania on the title page of his complaint, he does
not clearly allege his own present state citizenship or
clearly identify an amount in controversy. See id.
There does not appear to be a basis for diversity
jurisdiction on the face of the complaint. Nor does there
appear to be a basis for federal question jurisdiction. 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)). “[T]he
presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is
governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,'
which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a
federal question is presented on the face of the
plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.”
Id. at 1089 (quoting Rivet v. Regions Bank,
522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998)). Plaintiff's complaint does not
clearly invoke any federal law or constitutional right.
See ECF No. 1.
“knowledge and notice” document submitted in
response to the order to show cause does not establish
subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 10. Although plaintiff
does mention the Federal Trade Commission and the FDIC
(Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), his response does
not indicate that he is bringing any federal claims.
Id. at 1-3. Nor does the response indicate any basis
for diversity jurisdiction. Id Indeed, like the
complaint itself, the filing is largely incoherent.
Id Plaintiffs “claimant order to show
cause” document is also nonresponsive and incoherent;
even though it references federal entities and legal terms
such as “full faith and credit” and
“restraint of trade, ” it does not explain why
there is any jurisdictional basis for the court to hear this
case. See ECF No. 11. It is not enough to use terms
that might be included in an explanation for the existence of
jurisdiction. The explanation itself must tell the court why
there is either diversity jurisdiction or federal question
jurisdiction such that the court is convinced it is able to
hear this case. It is clear from the plaintiffs complaint and
his subsequent filings that the court has no subject matter
jurisdiction to hear this case.
reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion
at ECF No. 11 is DENIED.
it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs complaint (ECF No.
1) be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, and that this case be CLOSED.
findings and recommendations are submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one
(21) days after being served with these findings and
recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with
the court. Such document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is
advised that failure to file objections ...