Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02493/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02493-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

Case No. 16-cv-02493 NC 

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAHAMOUD ASCARIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAVILAN COLLEGE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02493 NC 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

FOLLOWING § 1915 REVIEW

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Plaintiff Mahamoud Ascarie, proceeding pro se, alleges that he was wrongfully 

terminated and tricked into working on a volunteer basis as a part time chemistry lecturer

by his former employer, Gavilan College. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. However, Ascarie fails to state 

a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, Ascarie’s complaint is dismissed 

with leave to amend. He must file an amended complaint by August 8, 2016, or his 

complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Review Under § 1915

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “any court of the United States may authorize the 

commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a 

person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement . . . that the person is unable to 

pay such fees or give security therefor.” A district court must dismiss the complaint of an 

in forma pauperis (IFP) applicant if it determines that the complaint is frivolous or fails to 

Case 5:16-cv-02493-BLF Document 8 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 5
Case No. 16-cv-02493 NC 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). A complaint is frivolous for purposes of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 

U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “Dismissals on these grounds are often made sua sponte prior to the 

issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense 

of answering such complaints.” Id. at 324. 

Where a litigant is acting pro se and the court finds the litigant’s complaint 

frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the pro se litigant “must be 

given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is 

absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” 

Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).

B. Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” and can only adjudicate cases 

which the Constitution or Congress authorize to; cases involving a federal question or 

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

(1994).

Federal subject matter jurisdiction based on the presence of a federal question is 

governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, 

laws, or treaties of the United States. “[I]t is elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction 

of the district court is not a waivable matter and may be raised at any time by one of the 

parties, by motion or in the responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing 

court.” Emrich v. Touch Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 fn. 2 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal 

subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) and 

requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in excess of 

$75,000.

II. ANALYSIS

Here, Ascarie has shown in his IFP application that he is unable to pay the filing fee 

required to file a complaint in federal district court. Dkt. Nos. 2, 5 (application and order 

Case 5:16-cv-02493-BLF Document 8 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 5
Case No. 16-cv-02493 NC 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

granting IFP status). However, upon review of his allegations, the Court finds that, 

liberally construed, his complaint does not pass § 1915 review and should be dismissed for 

lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Ascarie states that “[v]enue is proper in this court, within the meaning of 

subdivision (b) of California Code Section 12965, because the unlawful employment 

practices complained herein occurred within Santa Clara County, California.” Id. at 2. 

However, this is incorrect. Unlike state court, which is a court of general jurisdiction, a 

federal court may hear a case only if it has subject matter jurisdiction, which requires 

either (1) federal question jurisdiction or (2) diversity jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at

377.

For the Court to have federal question jurisdiction, Ascarie’s action must arise 

under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case arises under federal law within the meaning 

of § 1331 if a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause 

of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a 

substantial question of federal law.” Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 

1208, 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations omitted). Pursuant to the “well-pleaded 

complaint” rule, “the federal question on which jurisdiction is premised cannot be supplied 

via a defense; rather, the federal question must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, 

unaided by the answer.” Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 

1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations omitted).

Here, Ascarie’s complaint appears to be grounded solely in California state law. He 

alleges that Defendants have violated the “California Fair Employment and Housing Act 

(California Government Code Section 129000 et seq.),” and “Section 12940 of the 

California Government Code,” and also references the “Government Claims Act 

(California Government Code Section 810 et seq.).” Dkt. No. 1 at 2, 3, 5. He does not 

allege a violation of the Constitution or of federal employment law. Because his complaint 

does not allege a violation of federal or constitutional law, the Court lacks federal question 

jurisdiction.

Case 5:16-cv-02493-BLF Document 8 Filed 07/26/16 Page 3 of 5
Case No. 16-cv-02493 NC 4

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

Northern District of California

Having failed to find subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal question, the 

Court turns to diversity jurisdiction. Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in 

excess of $75,000.

Ascarie’s complaint alleges that he is a resident of Santa Clara County, California. 

Dkt. No. 1. He names Gavilan College, “located at 5055 Santa Teresa Blvd., Gilroy CA 

95020,” Dean Fran Lozano, a “full time employee of Gavilan College,” and Dr. Dale 

Clark, a “full time chemistry faculty member at Gavilan College,” as the defendants in his 

lawsuit. At one point Ascarie states that he “sues these Defendants by such fictitious 

names and will amend this complaint to include other responsible defendants when 

discovered and to allege their true names, culpability, and/or agent of each of the 

remaining defendants.” Dkt. No. 1 at 5. It may be possible that Ascarie wishes to sue a 

person or entity that is not a California citizen.1

 However, there must be complete 

diversity for diversity jurisdiction to exist, and Ascarie lists Gavilan College as a 

California citizen. Therefore, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over Ascarie’s 

complaint.

Because Ascarie alleges only violations of California law and lists only California 

citizens as defendants, his complaint fails to allege either federal question or diversity 

jurisdiction.

III. CONCLUSION

Because the complaint does not allege either federal question or diversity 

jurisdiction, it is dismissed with leave to amend. By August 8, 2016, Ascarie must file an 

amended complaint that cures the deficiencies identified in this order, or his complaint will 

be dismissed with prejudice.

 1 If Ascarie amends his complaint, he must list the real names of all known defendants.

Case 5:16-cv-02493-BLF Document 8 Filed 07/26/16 Page 4 of 5
Case No. 16-cv-02493 NC 5

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

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-02493-BLF Document 8 Filed 07/26/16 Page 5 of 5