Morrey Selck v. Tony Lopez, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MORREY SELCK,1 Case No. 2:25-cv-1950-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 TONY LOPEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff filed this action against Tony Lopez d/b/a/ Tony the Tiger Bail Bonds; Smileys 18 Barber Shop; Sean Christensen, Marylin Christensen, and Hank Martinez, owners of Smileys 19 Barber Shop. However, after reviewing the complaint, I find that it fails to establish a basis for 20 the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff will be provided fourteen days to show cause why 21 this action should not be dismissed. Failure to comply with this order will result in a 22 recommendation that this action be dismissed. 23 A district court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1447(c). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal 25 question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction requires that the 26

27 1 On April 8, 2026, Judge Delaney issued a recommendation that plaintiff be declared a vexatious litigant. See Selck v. California Department of Social Services, 2:25-cv-2868-DC- 28 CKD, ECF No. 22. Those recommendations remain pending before Judge Coggins. 1 complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a “case or 2 controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be authorized 3 by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal jurisdiction. 4 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction, a plaintiff 5 must specifically allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the matter in controversy 6 exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 7 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts 8 unless demonstrated otherwise. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 9 376-78 (1994). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by 10 the court. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 11 1996). 12 The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded 13 complaint rule, which provides that federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal 14 question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Wayne v. DHL 15 Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002). Critically, on the face of the complaint, 16 there is no federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff makes passing reference to sections in Title 18 17 of the United States Code, but federal criminal statutes do not provide private rights of action. 18 See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding that there is no private right 19 of action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). Moreover, a passing reference to a federal law is 20 “insufficient to support federal jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.” Dennis v. 21 Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 2013). 22 Further, the complaint fails to support diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction 23 requires that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000 and complete diversity. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1332(a). Plaintiff lists both his and defendants’ residences in California. Accordingly, there 25 does not appear to be a basis for diversity jurisdiction on the face of the complaint. 26 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 27 1. Plaintiff shall show cause within fourteen days from the date of this order why this 28 action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ] 2. Plaintiff is warned that failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation 2 | that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ May 5, 2026 aw—— 6 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28