Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05210/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05210-0/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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND—No. C-07-05210 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-filed on 2/22/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BRAD BOTHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLUE MONKEY; SEBASTIAN SANCHEZ;

et al.,

Defendants.

No. C-07-05210 RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

[Re Docket No. 2]

On September 28, 2007, plaintiff Brad Bothell filed a complaint seeking $10,000.00 for

personal injury and fraud based on an incident that occurred in September or October of 2005 in

which a bouncer at the Blue Monkey appears to have shined a flashlight into plaintiff's eyes and also

prevented him from working in front of the establishment. Plaintiff asks the court to permit him to

proceed in forma pauperis. 

Plaintiff states that is currently employed with a monthly income of $1000.00, but that he has

monthly expenses of approximately $930.00. Because plaintiff's monthly expenses represent nearly

Case 5:07-cv-05210-RMW Document 6 Filed 02/22/08 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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND—No. C-07-05210 RMW

MAG 2

all of his monthly income, the court finds it appropriate to grant plaintiff's request to proceed in

forma pauperis.

The court has determined, however, that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the

matter. Federal courts are required to consider the presence or absence of subject matter jurisdiction

sua sponte. Cannon v. Hawaii Corp. (In re Hawaii Corp.), 796 F.2d 1139, 1141 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Here, although the caption of the action reads "Amount Demanded $10,000.00 Personal Injury,

Fraud and Civil Rights Violation Complaint," plaintiff does not plead any facts that would suggest a

federal claim that would provide the court with federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Nor is there any indication that the plaintiff is a citizen of a different state from all defendants and

that the amount in controversy meets the requirements for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1332.

Even assuming the court had subject matter jurisdiction and that plaintiff's complaint can be

read to assert a civil rights claim, the complaint would fail to state a claim on which relief may be

granted. "To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of State law." Long v. County of Los

Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff alleges neither element. Accordingly,

because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and the complaint fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted by this court, the court dismisses the case without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff shall have 20 days to amend his complaint to state a claim upon which

this court may grant relief. If he fails to do so, the court will dismiss the case. 

DATED: 2/22/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-05210-RMW Document 6 Filed 02/22/08 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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND—No. C-07-05210 RMW

MAG 3

A copy of this order was mailed on 2/25/08 to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Brad Bothell

80 S. Market Street

San Jose, CA 95113

Counsel for Defendant(s):

No appearance

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Dated: 2/22/08 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:07-cv-05210-RMW Document 6 Filed 02/22/08 Page 3 of 3