(PS) Sewell v. Franklin Credit Management Corporation

Opinion

MARVIN A. SEWELL, No. 2:24-cv-02241 DJC CKD (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Here, plaintiff’s brief and conclusory allegations do not state a federal claim against any defendant. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that in June 2024, his property was foreclosed and went to auction, and that defendants violated unspecified laws in connection with the foreclosure. Plaintiff states without explanation that the amount in controversy is $256,000. He asserts federal diversity jurisdiction, which requires an amount in controversy of at least $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. In the absence of a basis for federal jurisdiction, plaintiffs claims cannot proceed in this venue. As to diversity jurisdiction, the diversity statute is strictly construed, and any doubts are resolved against finding Jurisdiction. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 1983). As plaintiff has alleged no legal or factual basis for the claimed damages, the amount in controversy requirement plainly cannot be met. See McDaniel v. Hinch, No. 2:17-cv-02448 KJM CKD (E.D. Cal.), Order dated July 11, 2018 (“[W]ith no stated claim triggering either diversity or federal question jurisdiction, the complaint is properly subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P 8(a)(2); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009).”). Because there is no basis for federal Jurisdiction evident in the complaint, plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. Failure to allege a proper basis for jurisdiction will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 2. No later than February 26, 2025, plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Dated: February 5, 2025 / □□ I / dle ae UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2/sewe2241 .ifp-nojuris