Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01149/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01149-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1 

19cv1149-LAB (NLS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRETT M. SCHUTTE, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

NUCOR CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 19cv1149-LAB (NLS) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS; 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; 

AND 

ORDER SCREENING AND 

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

 Plaintiff Brett Schutte, pro se, filed a complaint along with a motion for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion for appointment of counsel. The 

IFP motion is GRANTED. 

 Schutte asks the Court to appoint counsel for him. Plaintiffs in civil cases 

have no right to appointment of counsel. Under exceptional circumstances, the 

Court may request counsel to represent indigent civil litigants. See Palmer v. 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). In 

deciding whether this is such a case, the Court must consider “the likelihood of 

success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims 

Case 3:19-cv-01149-LAB-NLS Document 4 Filed 06/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

19cv1149-LAB (NLS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (quoting Weygandt 

v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 

This does not appear to be an exceptional case, however. Schutte’s motion 

shows that he contacted three large law firms, two of whom said they had a conflict 

of interest and one of whom asked him for a retainer, which he could not provide. 

He is bringing claims based on a business dispute, and contacted only firms 

unlikely to be able to represent him because of the large number of Defendants he 

is suing, including the boards of regents of two public universities. The firms he 

contacted are also unlikely to accept his case on a contingency basis. He 

apparently did not contact any low-cost legal providers, legal aid agencies, or small 

law practices that might be willing to take his case on contingency. Schutte 

appears reasonably able to articulate his claims. But for reasons discussed below, 

it does not appear likely he can succeed on the merits in this Court. The motion to 

appoint counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must screen the complaint of any 

plaintiff proceeding IFP, and dismiss it to the extent it fails to state a claim or seeks 

money damages against an immune defendant. See Barren v. Harrington, 152 

F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Because Schutte is proceeding pro se, the Court 

construes the complaint liberally. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 

839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). But the Court will not supply facts he has not 

pled. See Ivey v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th 

Cir. 1982). When conducting the mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2), the Court uses the standard applicable to motions under to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005). 

The Court is required to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. Mt. Healthy City 

Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977). 

 The complaint identifies a business dispute based on unfair competition of 

some kind. He alleges he brought a business idea to several of the Defendants, 

Case 3:19-cv-01149-LAB-NLS Document 4 Filed 06/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

19cv1149-LAB (NLS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

who met with him in San Diego. Then, he alleges, without his consent these 

Defendants began dealing with his contacts behind his back and began doing 

business with them. This might or might not amount to theft or improper use of 

trade secrets, depending on whether the information Defendants used amounted 

to a trade secret. It might amount to some kind of breach of contract. Or it might 

amount to unfair competition. But whatever the nature of Schutte’s claim, he has 

not explained why this Court would have jurisdiction over it, nor alleged facts that 

would reasonably show the Court has jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) 

(requiring that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the basis for the 

Court’s jurisdiction). 

 Two of the most common bases for federal jurisdiction, federal question and 

diversity, do not appear on the face of the complaint. It is not clear what law 

Schutte’s claims are based on, but they could arise entirely under California or 

other state law. Furthermore, the allegations do not allege the citizenship of 

Schutte or any of the Defendants.1 See Bautista v. Pan American World Airlines, 

Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987) (to establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1332, a plaintiff must specifically allege the diverse citizenship of all 

parties, and that the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.).

Bearing in mind that two of the defendants are the boards of regents of public 

universities, they do not appear to be diverse. See Moor v. Cnty. of Alameda, 411 

U.S. 693, 717 (1973) (holding that an arm of a state is not a “citizen” for diversity 

purposes); Humenansky v. Regents of Univ. Minn., 152 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 

1998) (holding that University of Minnesota was an instrumentality of the state); 

Ronwin v. Shapiro, 657 F.2d 1071, 1073 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that University of 

/ / / 

                                               

1 Although the caption names only NuCor Corporation and two boards of regents 

as Defendants, the body of the complaint identifies several others. (Compl. at 2.) 

Case 3:19-cv-01149-LAB-NLS Document 4 Filed 06/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

19cv1149-LAB (NLS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Arizona’s board of regents was not a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332).

Furthermore, boards of regents of state universities are likely to be immune 

from suit for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment. Humanensky at 

823 (treating board of regents as entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity to the 

same extent as the university and state); Ronwin at 1073–74 (holding that 

University of Arizona’s board of regents enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity). 

The complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to invoke 

the Court’s jurisdiction. If Schutte believes he can successfully amend his 

complaint to show that the Court has jurisdiction, he may do so no later than July 

25, 2019. His amended complaint must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and must 

be received and docketed by the due date, not merely mailed or postmarked. If he 

files an amended complaint by that date, it must clearly show why the Court has 

jurisdiction over his claims. Otherwise, this action will be dismissed without 

prejudice to its being refiled in a court that does have jurisdiction. 

 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 24, 2019 

Hon. Larry Alan Burns 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01149-LAB-NLS Document 4 Filed 06/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4