Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02788/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02788-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

MARSHA M. AYCHILLHUM, 

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14CV2788-MMA (RBB)

vs. ORDER:

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

[Doc. No. 2]

SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION

[Doc. No. 1]

DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR COURT TO

APPOINT COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 3]

ROGER LEE HEARTHLY

Defendant.

Plaintiff Marsha Aychillhum, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint in

federal court against Defendant Roger Lee Hearthly. See Doc. No. 1. Concurrently,

Plaintiff filed a motion requesting to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) as well as a

request for appointment of counsel. See Doc. Nos. 2, 3. 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

A party instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee

- 1 - 14cv2788-MMA (RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-02788-MMA-RBB Document 4 Filed 11/24/14 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

of $400.1 See 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 in

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d

1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a

right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). 

 A party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). But “the

same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not

squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the

remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull

his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). Based on

the information provided by Plaintiff in support of her IFP motion, the Court

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)(B)

When a plaintiff proceeds IFP, the complaint is subject to mandatory

screening and the Court must order the sua sponte dismissal of any case it finds

“frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”). Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) permits a district court to dismiss a complaint sua

sponte for lack of subject jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and thus, can only hear certain types

of claims that the Constitution or Congress has authorized them to adjudicate. 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. Of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). For

1

 In addition to the filing fee of $350, the District Court Miscellaneous Fee

Schedule, effective May 1, 2013, requires payment of an administrative fee for filing a civil action in district court of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, note 14. However, the $50 administrative fee is waived

if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP.

- 2 - 14cv2788-MMA (RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-02788-MMA-RBB Document 4 Filed 11/24/14 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

example, common bases for federal jurisdiction include actions: that present a

federal question (28 U.S.C. § 1331); where there is diversity of citizenship among

the parties (28 U.S.C. § 1332); or based on statute that regulate specific subject

matters such as civil rights, antitrust, copyright, and trademark. Therefore, “[i]t is

presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of

establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511

U.S. at 377. 

The well-pleaded complaint rule governs whether federal jurisdiction exists.

Franchise Tax Board of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern

Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 9–11 (1983). The well-pleaded complaint rule is a “powerful

doctrine [that] severely limits the number of cases in which state law ‘creates the

cause of action’ that may be initiated in or removed to federal district court . . . .” . 

Id. at 9–10. Under this rule, the federal question must be “presented on the face of

the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id.; accord Wayne v. DHL Worldwide

Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002). In this case, Plaintiff has not

established that her complaint is properly before this Court. 

First, to bring an action in federal court based federal question jurisdiction, the

complaint must establish either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the

plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of substantial

questions of federal law. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. at 10–11. Here, Plaintiff

indicates on the civil cover sheet that jurisdiction in this Court is based on a federal

question and further identifies the nature of the suit as “Other Contract.” However,

in looking to Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds that a federal question is not

presented on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint. See Doc. No. 1-2. Although it is not

entirely clear, Plaintiff appears to bring her complaint to recover certain funds under

California law based on an “implied contract between nonmarital cohabitants.” 

Compl. at 2. Thus, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the complaint does not present a

claim based on federal question. 

- 3 - 14cv2788-MMA (RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-02788-MMA-RBB Document 4 Filed 11/24/14 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

This leaves diversity of citizenship as the only available basis of jurisdiction

in this Court. A federal court also has jurisdiction over an action involving citizens

of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §

1332. Here, Plaintiff seeks to recover a bank account that has purportedly

accumulated $21 million, which satisfies the amount in controversy requirement. 

However, the parties are not citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332;

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 76 (1996). Although Plaintiff does not

include allegations of either party’s citizenship in the complaint itself, she indicates

on the civil cover sheet that she and Defendant are both citizens of California and

residents of San Diego County. Accordingly, there is no diversity of citizenship

among the parties, and the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction in this matter. 

The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. In light of the Court’s conclusion that it lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, it DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:

(i) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2];

(ii) The complaint is DISMISSED sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B) for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. 

(iii) In light of the Court’s finding that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction,

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot [Doc. No. 3]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 24, 2014

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 4 - 14cv2788-MMA (RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-02788-MMA-RBB Document 4 Filed 11/24/14 Page 4 of 4