Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04666/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04666-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

JACQUELINE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AT&T CORPORATION, and DOES 1

THROUGH 100,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-04666 JSW

ORDER DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND DISMISSING

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

On August 1, 2006, Plaintiff Jacqueline Williams filed a complaint and an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. Courts must deny in forma pauperis applications under certain

circumstances, including when the underlying complaint sought to be filed is frivolous or when

it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

In contravention of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), Plaintiff failed to file a

pleading setting forth the grounds upon which this Court has jurisdiction, “a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, . . . and a demand for

judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” Rather, Plaintiff’s complaint is disjointed to the

point of being incoherent and unintelligible. It is thus unclear to the Court the legal theories on

which Plaintiff seeks relief, what relief she is, in fact, seeking, or the underlying factual basis

for the suit. 

Furthermore, federal courts are under a duty to raise and decide issues of subject matter

jurisdiction sua sponte at any time it appears subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking. Fed.

R. 

Case 3:06-cv-04666-JSW Document 8 Filed 01/04/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Civ. P. 12; Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). If the Court

determines that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court must dismiss the case. Id.; Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). California superior courts are courts of general, unlimited jurisdiction and

can render enforceable judgments in practically any type of case. However, federal courts have

limited jurisdiction. Federal courts can only adjudicate cases which the Constitution or

Congress authorize them to adjudicate: those cases involving diversity of citizenship (where

the parties are from diverse states), or a federal question, or those cases to which the United

States 

is a party. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375

(1994). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil cases and the burden of

establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. at 377. 

Although it is difficult to determine what claims Plaintiff is attempting to assert, she

appears to be asserting state law claims. If so, Plaintiff must demonstrate that there is complete

diversity, meaning that the parties are citizens of different states, and that the amount at issue

exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff alleges that defendant AT& T is a California Corporation. If AT&T

is actually a citizen of California and if Plaintiff also resides in California, diversity would be

lacking. Moreover, it does not appear that Plaintiff is alleging that she incurred damages which

exceed the jurisdictional amount of $75,000. Finally, although Plaintiff mentions 42 U.S.C. §

2000e, she fails to allege any facts which would support bringing an employment claim against

AT&T.

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is HEREBY

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, she must file an amended complaint setting

forth a cognizable legal claim and some factual basis to support a claim with federal jurisdiction

by February 2, 2007. Plaintiff may file a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis

upon filing an amended complaint. Failure to file timely an amended complaint shall result in

dismissal of this action without prejudice. The Court advises Plaintiff that a Handbook for Pro

Case 3:06-cv-04666-JSW Document 8 Filed 01/04/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Se Litigants, which contains helpful information about proceeding without an attorney, is

available through the Court’s website or in the Clerk’s office. 

If Plaintiff intends to pursue this action, she must provide a current phone number at

which she may be reached. The phone number on file, (510) 450-0407, appears to be outdated.

In light of this Order, the date for the Case Management Conference, previously set for

January 5, 2007 at 1:30 p.m., is VACATED and will be reset by the Court at a later date, if

necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04666-JSW Document 8 Filed 01/04/07 Page 3 of 3