Frye v. The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 11, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00236
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JASON R. FRYE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00236-SKO 11 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING Plaintiff, SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 12 v. 13 (Doc. 1) THE ASSOCATION OF STATE AND 14 PROVINCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BOARD, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 On February 25, 2025, Plaintiff Jason R. Frye, a California citizen proceeding pro se, filed 18 a complaint against The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards, Pearson I. Vue, 19 and “each of the 50 states psychology boards,” including the California Board of Psychology, 20 asserting various claims. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff asserts this Court has subject matter jurisdiction 21 under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1 at 16. See also Doc. 1-1.) 22 The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction “rests upon the party asserting 23 jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also 24 Romero v. Securus Techs., Inc., 216 F. Supp. 3d 1078, 1085 (S.D. Cal. 2016) (“As the party 25 putting the claims before the court, Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction.”). The 26 Court may consider the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time during the 27 proceeding, and if the Court finds “it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the 28 action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Scholastic Ent., Inc. v. Fox Ent. Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 1 (9th Cir. 2003). See also Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting 2 federal courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject matter 3 jurisdiction”). As described below, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to sufficiently plead federal 4 jurisdiction. 5 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides jurisdiction over certain actions between citizens of 6 different states. Complete diversity is a requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Thus, the “citizenship 7 of each plaintiff [must be] diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 8 Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Here, Defendant California Board of Psychology is part of the 9 California state government. Holcomb v. California Bd. of Psychology, No. 2:15-CV-02154- 10 KJM-CKD, 2016 WL 3126127, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2016) (citing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 11 100–01). Since Plaintiff and Defendant California Board of Psychology are citizens of the same 12 state, the complaint fails to plead complete diversity to establish jurisdiction under § 1332. See 13 Garcia-Cardenas v. Immigration Legal Servs., APC, No. 1:13-CV-01065-AWI-SKO, 2013 WL 14 4542223, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2013) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806) (no 15 plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any of the defendants)). Accordingly, 16 1. Within fourteen days of the issuance of this order, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in 17 writing why his claims should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 18 2. Alternatively, within fourteen days, Plaintiff may either file an amended complaint 19 that contains allegations addressing the Court’s jurisdiction and the issues identified in 20 this order or may voluntarily dismiss his claims. 21 Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation to the to-be-assigned 22 district judge that the case be dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24

25 Dated: March 10, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26

27 28