Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02576/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02576-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBIN GILLEN STARR,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOPHIA ORTEGA GONZALEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-02576-TLN-KJN PS 

ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND

DISMISSING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 2)

Plaintiff, who proceeds without counsel in this action, has requested leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s application in support of 

his request to proceed in forma pauperis makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Accordingly, the court grants plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.

The determination that a plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the 

required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court is directed to dismiss the case at any 

time if it determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or 

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against 

an immune defendant. 

A federal court has an independent duty to assess whether federal subject matter 

 

1 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1).

Case 2:19-cv-02576-TLN-KJN Document 3 Filed 01/09/20 Page 1 of 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

2

jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. 

Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had a duty 

to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties 

raised the issue or not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The court must sua sponte dismiss the case if, at any time, it determines that it lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A federal district court generally has original 

jurisdiction over a civil action when: (1) a federal question is presented in an action “arising 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” or (2) there is complete diversity of 

citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). 

In this case, plaintiff’s complaint is handwritten and in parts is not legible. (See generally

ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that he was struck by defendant Sophia Gonzalez’s vehicle, which 

resulted in plaintiff’s leg being amputated, along with other serious injuries. (Id. at 5.) Based on 

the face of plaintiff’s complaint it is unclear how defendants Triple A Auto Insurance and 

California State Auto Association are involved in this case, however, presumably they were the 

insurance carriers for the parties. Plaintiff requests damages for medical bills, pain and suffering, 

and loss of wages. (Id. at 3.)

Plaintiff asserts both diversity of citizenship and federal question as the bases for 

jurisdiction. However, both of these rationales fail. 

Regarding diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff’s complaint states that at least one defendant is a 

California citizen (ECF No. 1-1.), which defeats diversity. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties 

Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006).

The thrust of plaintiff’s argument regarding federal question jurisdiction appears to be that

defendants violated his due process rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. (See ECF

No. 1.) However, due process claims generally do not lie against a private individual or business. 

“The Fourteenth Amendment’s right to due process only protects discrimination that results from 

state action.” Jackson v. Brown, 513 F.3d 1057, 1079 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, plaintiff has not

alleged, and does not appear to be able to allege, any state action that would implicate due process 

protections. 

Case 2:19-cv-02576-TLN-KJN Document 3 Filed 01/09/20 Page 2 of 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

3

To be clear, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the act of a private individual can amount to state 

action under certain circumstances. See Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 445 (9th Cir. 2002)

(outlining four potential tests: (1) the public function test, (2) the joint action test, (3) the state 

compulsion test, or (4) the governmental nexus test). However, plaintiff’s allegation of an 

automobile accident between private citizens, which also implicates private businesses, does not 

appear to fit within any of these exceptions. 

Regarding plaintiff’s passing references to the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth 

Amendments of the Constitution as well as to sections of the Uniform Commercial Code, the 

court can extract no cause of action in plaintiff’s complaint premised on these grounds. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint does not state a cognizable federal claim sufficient to 

invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court does not have diversity 

jurisdiction. Consequently, the court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Accordingly, the court dismisses plaintiff’s complaint, but with leave to amend. If 

plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, it shall be clearly captioned “First Amended 

Complaint” and shall cure the jurisdictional deficiencies identified above. Plaintiff is informed 

that the court cannot refer to a prior complaint or other filing in order to make plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete 

in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint 

supersedes the original complaint, and once the first amended complaint is filed, the original 

complaint no longer serves any function in the case. 

Finally, nothing in this order requires plaintiff to file a first amended complaint. If 

plaintiff concludes that he is unable to cure the federal jurisdictional deficiencies, he may instead 

elect to file an action in state court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, but with leave to amend.

3. Within 28 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint 

in accordance with this order. Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue 

Case 2:19-cv-02576-TLN-KJN Document 3 Filed 01/09/20 Page 3 of 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

4

this action in federal court, plaintiff shall file a notice of voluntary dismissal of the 

action without prejudice within 28 days of the date of this order.

4. Failure to file either a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal 

without prejudice by the required deadline may result in dismissal of the action with 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 9, 2020

starr.2576

Case 2:19-cv-02576-TLN-KJN Document 3 Filed 01/09/20 Page 4 of 4