Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02064/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02064-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12102 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Disability Definition

---

1

3:17-cv-2064-BEN-JLB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANOUCHEHR RIAZATI,

Plaintiff,

v.

PUBLIC STORAGE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-2064-BEN-JLB

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION

On October 6, 2017, Plaintiff Manouchehr Riazati filed a civil complaint and an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Docket Nos. 1-2.) For the following

reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP application and DISMISSES the Complaint 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

I. Application to Proceed IFP

All parties instituting any civil action in a district court must pay a filing fee. 28 

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire 

fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

///

///

Case 3:17-cv-02064-BEN-JLB Document 3 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:17-cv-2064-BEN-JLB

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

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),

any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, 

prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without 

prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit 

that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person 

is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.

Plaintiff is not employed and receives approximately $330.00 per month from 

public assistance. (Docket No. 2 at ¶ 1.) Plaintiff pays for utilities, food, and 

transportation amounting to approximately $98.00 per month. (Docket No. 2 at ¶ 8.) The 

Court finds the IFP application sufficiently indicates Plaintiff cannot afford to pay the 

filing fee. The IFP application is therefore GRANTED.

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) specifically states that “[i]f the court 

determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the 

action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), “a court may raise the 

question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the 

action[.]” Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Emerich v. 

Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that “[i]t is 

elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a waivable 

matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the responsive 

pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court”). It is the plaintiff’s burden to 

establish jurisdiction. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96 (2010) (citing 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)) (“The burden

of persuasion for establishing diversity jurisdiction, of course, remains on the party 

asserting it.”).

The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 28 U.S.C. §

1332(a) provides:

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil 

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or 

Case 3:17-cv-02064-BEN-JLB Document 3 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:17-cv-2064-BEN-JLB

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

value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is 

between--

(1) citizens of different States;

(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign 

state, except that the district courts shall not have original 

jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between 

citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign 

state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence 

in the United States and are domiciled in the same State;

(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or 

subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and

(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, 

as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is both a citizen of Iran and a resident of 

California. (Docket No. 1 at p. 3.) Each Defendant is alleged to be a citizen of 

California. (Id. at pp. 3-4.)1 Thus, diversity jurisdiction does not exist under 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a)(1) because this action is not between “citizens of different States.” Similarly, 

diversity is lacking under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3) because this action is not between 

“citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are 

additional parties.” Diversity also does not exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(4) because 

Plaintiff is an individual and not a foreign state. 

Finally, Plaintiff has not established diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a)(2) because although the Complaint alleges Plaintiff is a citizen of Iran, it further 

alleges Plaintiff is a resident of California. According to the Complaint, the defendants 

allegedly sold Plaintiff’s “immigration documents.” (Docket No. 1-1 at pp. 4-5.) Thus, it 

is unclear whether Plaintiff has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the 

United States. In effect, the Court is unable to determine whether diversity jurisdiction 

 

1 All page number references to Plaintiff’s Complaint in this Order refer to the page 

numbers generated by the CM/ECF system.

Case 3:17-cv-02064-BEN-JLB Document 3 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:17-cv-2064-BEN-JLB

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

exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) because diversity jurisdiction does not exist between 

“citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted 

for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). 

Moreover, even if diversity of citizenship was not at issue, the Court is not 

persuaded that Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies the amount in controversy requirement. In 

addition to filing a separate statement of claims, Plaintiff filed a form complaint, which 

asked Plaintiff to explain how the amount in controversy exceeds “$75,000, not counting 

interest and costs of court,” to which Plaintiff responded “yes.” (Docket No. 1 at p. 4.) 

The Complaint further includes allegations that Defendants are partially responsible for 

Plaintiff’s medical bills related to a heart attack in excess of $200,000, but did not include 

facts to indicate why Defendants were liable for the medical bills. (Docket No. 1-1 at pp. 

2-3.) The remainder of the Complaint alleges various damages such as the sale of 

Plaintiff’s personal property, but does not include facts from which the Court may draw a 

plausible inference that the total amount of damages exceeds $75,000. 

In short, the Court finds the facts in the Complaint insufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s 

burden to demonstrate that it has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. Hertz Corp., 

559 U.S. at 96. As a result, the Court is required to dismiss his complaint for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-02064-BEN-JLB Document 3 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4