Bracho v. Las Vegas Justice Court

Opinion

* * *

ARIEL MORALES BRACHO, Case No. 2:20-cv-01339-RFB-NJK

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Defendant.

This Court, having reviewed the record in its entirety, dismisses Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice for the reasons stated below. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction because they possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute. Kalt v. Hunter, 66 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 1995); see 28 U.S.C. §1251, §1253, §1331, §1332. Federal courts are to presume that cases lie outside their jurisdiction, and the burden of proving jurisdiction rests on the party asserting it. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). To invoke a federal court's limited subject matter jurisdiction, a complaint need only provide “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). After reviewing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Plaintiff still fails to show why this Court has jurisdiction over this matter. Plaintiff’s claims appear to make general allegations about some type of disagreement with others which disrupted Plaintiff’s “social life.” The Court does not see how any of these claims, even liberally construed, invoke this Court’s limited jurisdiction. Therefore, subject-matter jurisdiction does not exist, and this Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter. Id.; see 28 U.S.C. $1251, 81253, §1331, $1332. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions in this matter are DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. DATED: September 28, 2020. samo

RICH! RD F. HOUY ARE, II UNITED STATESDISTRICT JUDGE

-3-