Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05478/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05478-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RYAN J. SMITH, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 v. 

DEANNE DE SANTO; JOE DESANTO; DE 

SANTO FAMILY; et al., 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 16-5478 CW 

ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR LACK 

OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION 

 Pro se Plaintiff Ryan J. Smith has filed a complaint in this 

Court alleging claims for “parental alienation,” “conspiracy of 

rights,” and “Munchausen Syndrome by proxy.”1 Docket No. 1. 

Subject matter jurisdiction is predicated on federal question 

jurisdiction. Id. at 2. 

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They 

possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” 

 1 The Court notes that the complaint identifies by name 

Plaintiff’s five year old son. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

5.2(a) provides that the name of any “individual known to be a 

minor” must be redacted from publicly filed court documents. The 

Court has restricted access to the complaint on the electronic 

docket so that only case participants may view it. In all future 

filings, Plaintiff shall identify his son by his initials, rather 

than his full name. 

Case 4:16-cv-05478-CW Document 6 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 

(1994). Federal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless 

the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See 

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n.3 (2006). 

Federal courts have a duty to examine jurisdiction sua sponte 

before proceeding to the merits of a case, Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon 

Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999), “even in the absence of a 

challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 

501 (2006). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts have federal question 

jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the United States 

Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. The Supreme 

Court has stated, “We have long held that ‘[t]he presence or 

absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the wellpleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction 

exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of 

the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.’” Rivet v. Regions 

Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987)). It does not appear from the face 

of Plaintiff’s complaint that his claims are based on the United 

States Constitution or any federal law or treaty. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why his 

complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Any response must be filed within three weeks of 

the date of this order. Failure to submit a response by this 

deadline may be deemed as consent to dismissal without prejudice 

of this action. 

Case 4:16-cv-05478-CW Document 6 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 3 

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 

The Court advises Plaintiff that he may wish to seek 

assistance from the Legal Help Center, with locations in room 

2796, on the 15th Floor of the Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate 

Avenue, San Francisco, California, and in room 470s, on the 4th 

Floor of the Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, 

California, where Plaintiff may sign up for a free appointment 

with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help, but 

not legal representation. The telephone number for scheduling an 

appointment with either location of the Legal Help Center is (415) 

782-8982. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 14, 2016 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:16-cv-05478-CW Document 6 Filed 10/14/16 Page 3 of 3