Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01478/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01478-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANA WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-CV-1478-DAD-EPG

ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE

Plaintiff, Lana Williams, proceeding pro se, filed this case against defendants Pacific Gas 

and Electric and the California Public Utilities Commission (“Defendants”). (Doc. No 1.) 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that defendants are overcharging her for gas that she did not use. 

Plaintiff is seeking the award of $500,000 for her pain and suffering, $500,000 in punitive 

damages, and reimbursement for her gas bill payments. For the reasons stated below, the court 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed 

without leave to amend.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct a review of a complaint to 

determine whether it “state[s] a claim on which relief may be granted,” is “frivolous or 

malicious,” or “seek[s] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” If 

Case 1:15-cv-01478-DAD-EPG Document 7 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 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

2

the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, it must be dismissed. Id. Leave to 

amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by 

amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663 

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While the factual allegations of a complaint are accepted as 

true, legal conclusion are not. Id. at 678.

In determining whether a complaint states an actionable claim, the court must accept the 

allegations in the complaint as true, Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 

(1976), construe pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Resnick v. 

Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins

v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 

(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after the 

decision in Iqbal). 

B. This Court Does Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff’s Claims

A review the complaint reveals that plaintiff cannot establish that federal jurisdiction is 

proper. Federal courts can only adjudicate cases authorized by the United States Constitution and 

Congress. Generally, this includes cases in which: 1) diversity of citizenship is established (the 

matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states), 2) a federal 

question is presented, or 3) the United States is a party. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332; see

also, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As discussed below, 

Plaintiff has failed to establish that federal jurisdiction is proper. 

///// 

Case 1:15-cv-01478-DAD-EPG Document 7 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 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

3

The United States is not a party in this action and no federal question is presented by the 

allegations of plaintiff’s complaint. Although the complaint does not contain any causes of 

action, plaintiff is alleging she was overcharged on her gas bill. That allegation does not create a 

federal question, but is merely a claim cognizable under state law. Similarly, no diversity 

jurisdiction can be established here. Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction of all civil actions 

where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between 

citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Jurisdiction under § 1332 requires complete 

diversity, so each plaintiff must be diverse from each defendant . Exxon Mobil Corp. v. 

Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005). In other words, the plaintiff must be a citizen 

of a different state from all of the named defendants. Here, all of the parties to this action are 

citizens of California. Therefore, diversity of citizenship has not been established and this court 

lacks jurisdiction over this case. No amendment to the complaint will cure this fatal deficiency.

II. ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, 

the complaint in this case must be dismissed without leave to amend. The Clerk of the Court is 

directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2015 

 DALE A. DROZD

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01478-DAD-EPG Document 7 Filed 12/18/15 Page 3 of 3