Harris v. Ukoha-Ajike al

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05727
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TONIE HARRIS, et al., Case No. 25-cv-05727-SK

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v.

10 ENDY UKOHA-AJIKE, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 Plaintiff Tonie Harris (“Harris”), proceeding pro se, filed a complaint naming both Harris 13 as an individual and Estate of Stephanie Palmer (“Palmer Estate”). (Dkt. No. 1.) A pro se 14 plaintiff may not bring claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity. Simon v. Hartford 15 Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 559 (2nd 16 Cir.1998) (administrator of estate may not appear pro se on behalf of estate); Pridgen v. Andresen, 17 113 F.3d 391, 393 (2nd Cir.1997) (executrix may not appear pro se on behalf of estate); Jones v. 18 Corr. Med. Servs., 401 F.3d 950, 951–52 (8th Cir.2005) (non-attorney administrator of decedent's 19 estate may not proceed pro se on behalf of estate)). Therefore, Harris may not file a claim on 20 behalf of the Palmer Estate. 21 Additionally, federal courts are under a duty to raise and decide issues of subject matter 22 jurisdiction sua sponte at any time it appears subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking. See Fed. 23 R. Civ. P. 12; Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). If the Court 24 determines that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court must dismiss the case. Id.; Fed. R. 25 Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 26 Federal courts may only adjudicate cases which the Constitution or Congress authorizes 27 them to adjudicate: (1) those cases involving diversity of citizenship (where the parties are from 1 See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994). Federal 2 courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil cases and the burden of establishing the 3 contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. at 377. The United States is not a party to 4 this case. Harris and Defendants are residents of California. Thus, complete diversity does not 5 exist, and there is no jurisdiction based on diversity. 6 It is not clear that Harris has raised a question of federal law. Although Harris checked the 7 box stating the Complaint asserts a claim under federal law, there does not appear to be any 8 federal claim addressed in the Complaint. “The presence or absence of federal-question 9 jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule.’” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 10 U.S. 382, 392 (1987). The well-pleaded complaint rule recognizes that the plaintiff is the master 11 of his or her claim. “[H]e or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” 12 Id. Thus, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal question jurisdiction arises when the 13 “complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right 14 to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax 15 Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 643 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). 16 Therefore, the Court HEREBY ORDERS Harris to Show Cause why this case should not 17 be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation to dismiss this case for lack of subject 18 matter jurisdiction. If Harris is asserting a claim under federal law on Harris’s own behalf, in 19 response to the Order to Show Cause (“OSC”), Harris shall clarify what statute and what facts are 20 or could be alleged in support of that claim. If Harris states sufficient facts to allege at least one 21 federal claim, Harris shall allege facts to show how any state-law claims are connected to the 22 federal claim to support supplemental jurisdiction. Harris shall file a response in writing to this 23 OSC by no later than October 30, 2025. 24 The Court HEREBY VACATES the Case Management Conference and will reset the Case 25 Management Conference at a later date, if necessary. Therefore, the Court DENIES Harris’s 26 request to continue the Case Management Conference as MOOT. 27 The Court ADVISES Harris that the district court has produced a guide for pro se litigants 1 instructions on how to proceed at every stage of your case, including discovery, motions, and trial. 2 || Itis available electronically online (https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp- 3 |} content/uploads/2020/02/Pro_Se Handbook 2020ed_links 12-2021 MBB.pdf) or in hard copy 4 || free of charge from the Clerk’s Office. The Court additionally has a website with resources for 5 || pro se litigants (https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/). The Court further advises 6 || Plaintiff that he also may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center. Plaintiff may call 7 the Legal Help Center at 415-782-8982 or email fedpro@sfbar.org for a free appointment with an 8 attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help, but not legal representation. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: September 30, 2025 □ 11 hashrr ko SALLIE KIM 12 United States Magistrate Judge

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28