Chanh Phommavong v. Lewis, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 1, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01527
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHANH PHOMMAVONG, No. 1:25-cv-01527-KES-SAB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER STRIKING UNSIGNED COMPLAINT 13 v. (ECF No. 1) 14 LEWIS, et al., ORDER TO FILE SIGNED COMPLAINT 15 Defendants. THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. In preparing to screen the complaint for 18 subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s complaint lacks any signature. Both 19 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules require that all filed pleadings, 20 motions and papers be signed by at least one attorney of record or by the party personally if the 21 party is unrepresented. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); Local Rule 131(b). As Plaintiff’s complaint is 22 unsigned, the Court must strike it from the record. Plaintiff will be permitted thirty (30) days to 23 file a signed complaint that complies with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. 24 Notwithstanding that the Court will strike the complaint for lack of a signature, the Court 25 at this time also addresses the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction for Plaintiff’s benefit. Federal 26 courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they may only hear specific types of cases. 27 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Lack of subject matter 28 1 jurisdiction can be raised at any time by any party or sua sponte by the court. See Csibi v. Fustos, 2 670 F.2d 134, 136 n.3 (9th Cir. 1982). 3 There are two ways to establish subject-matter jurisdiction in the federal courts. First, 4 federal question jurisdiction permits an individual to bring a claim in federal court if it arises 5 under federal law, including the U.S. Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal question 6 jurisdiction requires that the federal question appears on the face of a well pleaded complaint. 7 Federal question subject-matter jurisdiction is frequently derived from federal statutes granting a 8 cause of action to parties who have suffered a particular injury.1 9 Second, diversity jurisdiction generally permits individuals to bring claims in federal court 10 where the claim exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. 11 § 1332. For example, if a citizen of New York sues a citizen of California for $75,001, a federal 12 court would have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear that claim. 13 Here, the Court observes that Plaintiff has not specified whether this case proceeds under 14 federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Nor are there any allegations in the 15 complaint that would indicate as such.2 Thus, the Court notes that, as pleaded, Plaintiff’s 16 complaint fails to adequately allege that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. 17 This failure prevents the Court from hearing the case and would require dismissal of the action. 18 Should Plaintiff file an amended complaint, he should be sure to adequately address the issue of 19 subject-matter jurisdiction. 20 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1), is STRICKEN from the record for lack of 22 signature; 23 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to Plaintiff a Complaint for Civil Case 24 form; 25 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL file

26 1 Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides for supplemental jurisdiction in federal courts. It allows a federal court to hear a claim over which it does not have independent subject-matter jurisdiction if the claim is related to a claim over 27 which the federal court does have independent jurisdiction.

28 2 The Court observes that there are no allegations whatsoever in the complaint. (ECF No. 1.) 1 a signed complaint not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length (excluding 2 exhibits); and 3 4. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to comply with this order will result in 4 recommendation of dismissal of this action for failure to obey a court order, for 5 failure to prosecute, and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Ze Be g | Dated: _December 1, 2025 OF " STANLEY A. BOONE 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28