Turner v. BCforward

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 11, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00359
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 SUMMER DAWN TURNER, Case No. C22-359-RSL 9

10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 v. 12 BCFORWARD and FACEBOOK, 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on its review of plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. # 7). On 16 March 31, 2022, the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 17 forma pauperis but recommended that this Court review the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915(e)(2)(B) before issuance of summons. See Dkt. # 6. 19 The Court, having reviewed the record as a whole under the standards articulated in 20 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and having construed the allegations of the complaint liberally, see 21 Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003), finds that plaintiff’s 22 complaint is deficient. 23 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), the complaint must contain “a short and plain 24 statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” As a district court of the United States 25 rather than a state court of Washington, the Court is a federal court of limited jurisdiction. This 26 means that it possesses “only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute.” Exxon 27 Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). Whether the Court has power 28 to hear a specific claim is known as its “subject-matter jurisdiction.” If the Court determines at 1 any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ 2 P. 12(h)(3). By statute, Congress has given the Court subject-matter jurisdiction over two types 3 of cases: (i) federal question cases, meaning “civil actions that arise under the Constitution, 4 laws, or treaties of the United States,” and (ii) diversity cases, meaning “civil actions between 5 citizens of different States, between U.S. citizens and foreign citizens, or by foreign states 6 against U.S. citizens.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332). A natural person’s State of 7 citizenship is “her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to which 8 she intends to return.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). A 9 corporation is a citizen of every State (i) by which it has been incorporated, and (ii) where it has 10 its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Diversity jurisdiction also requires that 11 the amount in controversy “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) 12 (emphasis added). As the party seeking a federal venue by filing a complaint in federal court, 13 plaintiff has the burden of establishing all jurisdictional facts. See In re Dynamic Random 14 Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 546 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2008). 15 Plaintiff’s complaint does not assert the basis for jurisdiction, and it is not clear what the 16 basis might be. Regarding federal question jurisdiction, plaintiff appears to appeal denial of 17 unemployment benefits, alleging that her ex-employers lied. Unemployment benefits appeals 18 are generally a state law matter, and therefore do not provide the Court with federal question 19 jurisdiction. Regarding diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy is 20 exactly $75,000. Even assuming that plaintiff is a citizen of Washington State and defendants 21 are not (jurisdictional facts that are missing from the complaint), plaintiff’s claim for exactly 22 $75,000 is insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy must 23 exceed $75,000. 24 Further, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must contain “a short and plain 25 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint need 26 not provide detailed factual allegations, it must offer “more than labels and conclusions” and 27 contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atl. Corp. 28 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The Court will assume the truth of the plaintiff’s 1 allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in her favor, Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 2 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987), but the allegations must give rise to something more than mere 3 speculation that plaintiff has a right to relief, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The question for the 4 Court is whether the facts in the complaint sufficiently state a “plausible” ground for relief. 5 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Here, the Court would have to speculate not only regarding the 6 nature of her claim, but also about the factual basis for her claim. Plaintiff does not identify 7 what her claim is. Plaintiff also explains neither how defendants lied and abused her nor the 8 connection between these acts and her qualification for unemployment and other injuries. 9 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the 10 complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and/or failure to allege 11 facts that give rise to a plausible inference that relief is warranted. Plaintiff shall, within thirty 12 (30) days of this order, file an amended complaint which remedies the deficiencies set forth 13 above. If an acceptable amended complaint is not filed within the time proscribed, this action 14 will be dismissed without prejudice. 15 The Clerk of Court is directed to note this Order to Show Cause on the Court’s calendar 16 for Friday, May 13, 2022. 17 The Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this Order to plaintiff. 18 DATED this 11th day of April, 2022. 19 A

20 Robert S. Lasnik 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28