Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00782/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00782-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assualt,Slander

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIRELL FRANCIS BETTIS, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JOHN WALSH, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:06cv0782 LJO DLB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

(Document 54)

Plaintiff Kirell Francis Bettis (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, filed the instant action on May 1, 2006. 

On March 26, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

action be dismissed without leave to amend. The Findings and Recommendation were served on

all parties and contained notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed

his objections on April 7, 2008.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s

objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendation are supported by the record

and proper analysis.

The Court recognizes Plaintiff’s frustrations. However, it cannot create jurisdiction

where it does not otherwise exist. When the Court suggested that Plaintiff amend his complaint

Case 1:06-cv-00782-LJO-DLB Document 56 Filed 04/14/08 Page 1 of 2
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

2

to name a different defendant, it did not indicate that an amendment would not be subject to

screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), nor did it perform any type of jurisdictional analysis

as to potential defendants.

When Plaintiff amended his complaint, he named Twentieth Century Fox, the corporate

entity that owns/produces America’s Most Wanted. Doing so, however, destroyed diversity

jurisdiction. For diversity purposes, a corporation can have dual citizenship, both in the state

where it was organized and in another state, such as California, where it has its principal place of

business. Bank of California Nat. Ass'n v. Twin Harbors Lumber Co., 465 F.2d 489, 491-492

(9th Cir. 1972). Here, the Supplemental Second Amended Complaint names Twentieth Century

Fox as a citizen of the State of California yet appears to attempt to create diversity by citing an

address of 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10036. However, Twentieth Century

Fox is a citizen of both Delaware, where it was incorporated, and California, where it has its

principal place of business. See eg., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Marvel Enterprises,

277 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2002); Lassiter v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 2004 WL 1698681

(S.D.N.Y. 2004). As Plaintiff is a citizen of California, complete diversity does not exist.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated March 26, 2008, are ADOPTED IN

FULL; and

2. The action be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

This terminates this action in its entirety. The clerk is directed to close the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00782-LJO-DLB Document 56 Filed 04/14/08 Page 2 of 2