Harris v. American Family Insurance

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 7 CHRISTOPHER HARRIS, 8 Cause No. C23-1052RSL Plaintiffs, 9 v. ORDER 10 AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 On August 1, 2023, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted and 14 his complaint was accepted for filing. The Court reviewed the complaint and determined that 15 plaintiff had failed to allege facts sufficient to establish the Court’s jurisdiction: plaintiff had not 16 17 alleged a federal cause of action, identified the citizenship of the parties, or raised a plausible 18 inference that the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000. Plaintiff was ordered to show cause, 19 on or before August 23, 2023, why this matter should not be dismissed. No response or amended 20 complaint was filed by the deadline, and the above-captioned matter was dismissed. 21 On August 30, 2023, plaintiff requested an extension of time in which to respond to the 22 23 Order to Show Cause, asserting that he was incarcerated with no access to a law library or 24 computer. Dkt. #13. He did not, however, explain how the lack of legal research capabilities 25 prevented him from alleging facts that would establish this Court’s jurisdiction, nor did he 26 indicate how much time he would need to respond to the Order to Show Cause. He was given 27 1 fourteen days in which to provide that information. 2 This matter is again before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion: Requesting the Court Accept 3 the Documentation [Plaintiff] Previously Sent to Courts,” Dkt. #15, a request for appointment of 4 legal counsel, Dkt #17, a motion to add defendants and further response to the Order to Show 5 Cause, Dkt. #18, and a request that the Court transfer this matter to state court if federal 6 7 jurisdiction is lacking, Dkt. # 19. Plaintiff has already named Scott Farrand and Barbara Farrand 8 as defendants in this case, Dkt. # 8, and the Court has not only considered, but deemed true, the 9 evidence of injury filed with the complaint, Dkt. #2. Nevertheless, plaintiff’s submissions 10 confirm that the Court lacks the power to hear this case. 11 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 12 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction over two general 13 14 types of cases: cases that ‘aris[e] under’ federal law . . . and cases in which the amount in 15 controversy exceeds $ 75,000 and there is diversity of citizenship among the parties . . . .” These 16 jurisdictional grants are known as “federal-question jurisdiction” and “diversity jurisdiction,” 17 respectively. Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019). Plaintiff has 18 not asserted a federal claim or, as far as the Court can tell, alleged facts which could support 19 20 such a claim. Plaintiff affirmatively asserts that he and two of the named defendants are citizens 21 of Washington, thereby precluding any possibility of diversity jurisdiction. 22 With regards to plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel: 23 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. See Storseth v. 24 Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). However, a court may under “exceptional circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th 26 Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, a court 27 must consider “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the 1 petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Neither of 2 these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together. Wilborn v. 3 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 4 Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Where a litigant cannot succeed on the 5 merits because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the dispute, he cannot establish the sort of 6 exceptional circumstances that would justify appointment of counsel at the public’s expense. 7 8 Finally, this Court lacks the power to transfer this matter, which was originally filed in 9 federal court, to a state court. There is no federal statute or rule which authorizes a district court 10 to remand or transfer a case to a state court in these circumstances. See Rule 12(h)(3), Fed. R. 11 Civ. P. (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court 12 must dismiss the action.”); Christie v. Abdo, No. CV-12-931-PHX-LOA, 2012 WL 1768094, at 13 14 *1 (D. Ariz. May 17, 2012); Bradgate Associates, Inc. v. Fellows, Read & Associates, 999 F.2d 15 745, 749 (3rd Cir. 1993). In contrast, when the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a case that 16 was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) requires it to 17 remand the case to the court from which it was removed. The only other potentially relevant 18 statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1631, authorizes the transfer of claims between federal courts in some 19 circumstances. Hadley v. Haw. Gov’t Employees’ Ass’n, 281 Fed. Appx. 683, * 1 (9th Cir. 20 21 2008); Moravian Sch. Advisory Bd. v. Rawlins, 70 F.3d 270, 274 (3d Cir. 1995). Neither 22 § 1447(c) nor § 1631 authorize a transfer to state court in this case. 23 24 For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court grants plaintiff’s request that it consider the 25 documents provided with the complaint. Dkt. #15. The Court denies plaintiff’s motion for 26 appointment of counsel, Dkt #17, and the request for transfer to state court, Dkt. # 19. The Court 27 1 denies the motion to add defendants as moot, Dkt. #18. Having reviewed all of the information 2 provided, the Court finds that it lacks the power to hear this case. Plaintiff’s claims are 3 DISMISSED without prejudice. 4 5 Dated this 5th day of October, 2023. 6 7 Robert S. Lasnik 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27