Hernandez v. Orellana

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 22, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01476
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 11 12 MARY HERNANDEZ, CASE NO. C19-01476-RAJ 13 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING 14 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT v. 15 SYLVIA ORELLANA, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. For the reasons that follow, the 20 Court DISMISSES pro se Plaintiff Mary Hernandez’s complaint with leave to amend. 21 Dkt. # 3. 22 On September 13, 2019 Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant Sylvia 23 Orellana. Dkt. # 1-1. Plaintiff also submitted an application to proceed in forma 24 pauperis. Dkt. # 1. The Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida granted the application. Dkt. # 2. 25 The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915. The Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis plaintiff’s case if the Court 27 determines that “the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on 1 which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 2 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also See Lopez v. Smith, 203 3 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 4 complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks a basis 5 in law or fact. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint fails 6 to state a claim if it does not “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 7 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). 8 Before proceeding further with this matter, the Court is obligated to determine 9 whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Moore v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 10 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2011); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any 11 time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). Absent 12 jurisdiction, any determination on the merits would be void. Watts v. Pickney, 752 F.2d 13 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1985). Original jurisdiction may be based on diversity or the existence 14 of a federal question, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Federal courts have 15 jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 16 exclusive of interest and costs, and the case is between citizens of different states. 28 17 U.S.C. § 1332. 18 In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the jurisdictional basis for this action is 19 diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Dkt. # 3 at 1, 4. However, based on the 20 facts alleged in the Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff and Defendant Sylvia Orellana are 21 both residents of Washington. Dkt. # 3 at 4. As a result, complete diversity does not 22 exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). In addition, Plaintiff fails to allege facts supporting 23 damages in excess of $75,000. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 24 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation omitted). Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that 25 Defendant owes her $30,000, but this is well below the $75,000 threshold. Dkt. # 3 at 5. 26 To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff has 27 not identified a federal law or statute underlying her claims and the Court cannot 1 ascertain one. In sum, Plaintiff makes no allegations that support a finding of federal 2 question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. 3 For the reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint. 4 Dkt. # 3. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file an 5 amended complaint addressing the deficiencies addressed above. If Plaintiff does not file 6 an amended complaint within that timeframe, or if Plaintiff files an amended complaint 7 that does not state a cognizable claim for relief or is otherwise untenable under § 1915(e), 8 the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice. 9 10 Dated this 22nd day of November, 2019. 11 A 12 13 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27