Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02871/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02871-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle 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 

WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Taniela F Kivalu, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Unknown Parties, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-16-02871-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

At issue is pro se Plaintiff Taniela F. Kivalu’s Application for Leave to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). Having determined that Plaintiff does not have the means to pay 

the Court’s fees in this case, the Court grants the Application. However, as set forth below, 

upon screening Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1, Compl.) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 

the Court has found that the Complaint fails to state the grounds for the Court’s subject 

matter jurisdiction. The Court therefore dismisses the Complaint with prejudice. 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS 

A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

For cases in which a party is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis—that is, the 

party lacks the means to pay court fees—Congress provided that a district court “shall 

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that the “allegation of poverty is 

untrue” or that the “action or appeal” is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 

from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis

Case 2:16-cv-02871-JJT Document 5 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). “It is also clear that 

section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma 

pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Id. at 1127. 

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Federal Court 

Unlike state courts, federal courts only have jurisdiction over a limited number of 

cases, and those cases typically involve either a controversy between citizens of different 

states (“diversity jurisdiction”) or a question of federal law (“federal question 

jurisdiction”). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The United States Supreme Court has stated 

that a federal court must not disregard or evade the limits on its subject matter 

jurisdiction. Owen Equip. & Erections Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). Thus, a 

federal court is obligated to inquire into its subject matter jurisdiction in each case and to 

dismiss a case when subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 

372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). To proceed in federal 

court, a plaintiff must allege enough in the complaint for the court to conclude it has 

subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. 

Miller, 5 Fed. Practice & Procedure § 1206 (3d ed. 2014). 

II. ANALYSIS 

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 

Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks any statement of the grounds for this Court’s subject 

matter jurisdiction, as required by Rule 8(a)—other than that it is based upon the diversity 

of citizenship of the parties. (Compl. at 1.) However, from the face of the Complaint, the 

Court does not have diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims because the parties are not 

citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff is a resident of Phoenix, 

Arizona. (Compl. at 1.) While Defendant’s precise identity is unknown, Plaintiff alleges 

that the vehicle at issue is registered to an address located in Phoenix, Arizona. (Compl. at 

2.) This defect alone is cause for the Court to dismiss the Complaint. See Watson v. 

Chessman, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1194 (S.D. Cal. 2005). 

Case 2:16-cv-02871-JJT Document 5 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

Without its erroneous statement regarding diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s 

Complaint raises only a state law tort-based claim (negligence), if any claim at all, and not 

one arising under federal law. Because Plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient for the 

Court to conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction in this case, the Court must dismiss the 

Complaint. Plaintiff may be able to bring his claims in state court. 

B. No Leave to Amend 

If a defective complaint can be cured, the plaintiff is entitled to amend the complaint 

before the action is dismissed. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. Here, while Plaintiff may be 

able to state a claim under state law and in state court, it does not appear that Plaintiff’s 

attempt to allege diversity jurisdiction can be cured by amendment. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed 

without leave to amend. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall close this case. 

 Dated this 9th day of September, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-02871-JJT Document 5 Filed 09/09/16 Page 3 of 3