Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04307/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04307-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 151
Nature of Suit: Overpayments under the Medicare Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

Case No. 16-cv-04307 NC 

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

HEATHER GUILLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-04307 NC 

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Plaintiff Heather Guillen, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint against the 

Secretary of Health And Human Services after being denied Lidoderm patches (LP). Dkt. 

No. 1. She has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 2.

However, Guillen’s letter does not allege diversity of citizenship or a federal cause 

of action and does not satisfy the rules of pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

8(a). Therefore, Guillen is ordered to show cause why her complaint should not be 

dismissed. She is also reminded that she must either consent to or decline the jurisdiction 

of a magistrate judge under U.S.C. § 636(c). A form is attached to make this decision. 

Also attached is a letter providing guidance to additional resources the Court provides pro 

se litigants. Guillen must respond to this order and must either consent or decline 

magistrate judge jurisdiction by August 17, 2016.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “any court of the United States may authorize the 

commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a 

person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement . . . that the person is unable to 

Case 5:16-cv-04307-NC Document 4 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-04307 NC 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

pay such fees or give security therefor.” A district court must dismiss the complaint of an 

in forma pauperis (IFP) applicant if it determines that the complaint is frivolous or fails to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). “Dismissals on these grounds are often made sua 

sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the 

inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 

319, 324 (1989).

Here, Guillen has shown in her IFP application that she is unable to pay the filing 

fee required to file a complaint in federal district court. Dkt. No. 2. However, upon 

review of her allegations, the Court finds that, liberally construed, her complaint does not 

pass § 1915 review and should be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a complaint must contain: (1) a short plain 

statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction; (2) a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought. 

Guillen’s 63 page complaint does not give a description of the facts of her case or which 

laws or rights the defendant violated. Dkt. No. 1. She does not appear to be appealing a 

decision by the Commissioner of Social Security, and her complaint is a list of reasons that 

LP is an effective prescription to manage pain, including her doctor’s decision to prescribe 

LP’s “off-label.” Id. at 4. It fails to present federal subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, 

the Court orders Guillen to show cause why her complaint should not be dismissed. She 

must respond to this order in writing and also must either consent to or decline magistrate 

judge jurisdiction by August 17, 2016. Also attached is a letter providing guidance to 

additional resources the Court provides pro se litigants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04307-NC Document 4 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-04307 NC 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEATHER GUILLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-04307 NC 

CONSENT OR DECLINATION TO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

JURISDICTION

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate below by checking one of the two boxes whether 

you (if you are the party) or the party you represent (if you are an attorney in the case) 

choose(s) to consent or decline magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. Sign this form 

below your selection.

( ) Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I voluntarily consent to 

have a United States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case, 

including trial and entry of final judgment. I understand that appeal from the judgment 

shall be taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

OR

( ) Decline Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I decline to have a United 

States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case and I hereby request 

that this case be reassigned to a United States district judge.

DATE: NAME:

COUNSEL FOR:

(OR “PRO SE:)

__________________________________

Signature

Case 5:16-cv-04307-NC Document 4 Filed 08/03/16 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-04307 NC 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

280 South 1st Street

San Jose, CA 95113

www.cand.uscourts.gov

SUSAN Y. SOONG GENERALCOURT NUMBER

CLERK OF COURT 408-535-5363

To: Pro Se Litigant

Re: Representing Yourself Before This Court

Dear Pro Se Litigant:

If you are representing yourself in federal court without representation by an attorney, 

that is called proceeding “pro se.” The court has free resources to help you find your way 

through the court system and procedures. The Federal Pro Se Program at the San Jose 

Courthouse provides free information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in 

federal civil cases. The Federal Pro Se Program is available by appointment and on a drop-in 

basis. The Federal Pro Se Program is available at Room 2070 in the San Jose United States 

Courthouse (Monday to Thursday 1:00 – 4:00 pm, on Friday by appointment only), and The

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, 152 N. 3rd Street, 3rd Floor, San Jose, CA (Monday to 

Thursday 9:00 am –12:00 pm, on Friday by appointment only), or by calling (408) 297-1480.

There are also online resources available on the court’s webpage. The Pro Se

Handbook, found at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook, has a downloadable version 

of the court’s own publication: Representing Yourself in Federal Court: A Handbook for Pro 

Se Litigants. Pay special attention to the Civil Litigation Packets tab on the left, which 

provides useful fillable forms. The Pro Se Handbook website also has a link to the Court’s

Electronic Case Filing (ECF) website.

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

Case 5:16-cv-04307-NC Document 4 Filed 08/03/16 Page 4 of 4