Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02574/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02574-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MELINA RAZAVI,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUPERCUTS SALON, REGIS 

CORPORATION, AND DOES 1-100,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-02574-HRL 

ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED 

TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF 

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Melina Razavi sues for personal injuries allegedly suffered during a visit to a Supercuts 

salon. She also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). For the reasons discussed 

below, this court grants her IFP application, but recommends that her complaint be dismissed for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A court may authorize the commencement of a civil action IFP if the court is satisfied that 

the applicant cannot pay the requisite filing fees. 28 U.S.C § 1915(a)(1). In evaluating such an 

application, the court should “gran[t] or den[y] IFP status based on the applicant’s financial 

resources alone and then independently determin[e] whether to dismiss the complaint on the 

grounds that it is frivolous.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226-27 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984). A 

court may dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing fee whenever it determines that 

Case 5:15-cv-02574-EJD Document 4 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; 

or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). This court notes that Razavi’s application fails to state whether the 

complaint she seeks to file raises claims that have been presented in other lawsuits. (Dkt. 2 at 4). 

Nevertheless, she qualifies financially for IFP status, and her IFP application therefore is granted.

Even so, the court has a continuing duty to determine whether it has subject matter 

jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h). This court concludes that Razavi may not proceed with this 

action here because there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

Razavi fails to show that jurisdiction is proper based on any federal law. Federal courts 

have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under” federal law if, based on the “wellpleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief. Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 

129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). Plaintiff’s complaint presents a personal injury claim arising only 

under state law. It does not allege any federal claims whatsoever. And, it is not apparent that she 

could plead any such claim.

Nor does this court find any basis for diversity jurisdiction. Federal district courts have 

jurisdiction over civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 

$75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs) and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. 

§1332. Razavi fails to identify the citizenship of each defendant, and there is no indication that 

the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.

There being no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, Razavi’s complaint should be 

dismissed.

Because the parties have yet to consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this court 

ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a District Judge. The undersigned further 

RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge dismiss the complaint. Any party may serve and 

Case 5:15-cv-02574-EJD Document 4 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

file objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being served. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02574-EJD Document 4 Filed 06/18/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5:15-cv-02574-HRL A copy of this order sent on June 18, 2015 by U.S. Mail to:

Melina Razavi

1200 Franklin Mall

Santa Clara, CA 95050

Melina Razavi

P.O. Box 53034

San Jose, CA 95153

Case 5:15-cv-02574-EJD Document 4 Filed 06/18/15 Page 4 of 4