Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04969/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04969-0/pdf.json

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

---

Case No.16-cv-04969 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

MELINA RAZAVI,

Plaintiff,

v.

VERNON MILES LEW, D.D.S,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-04969 NC 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND TO 

DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER

28 U.S.C. § 1915

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2

Pro se plaintiff Melina Razavi filed a civil complaint and motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on August 29, 2016. Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. This order is the Court’s 

initial screening review for civil actions filed in forma pauperis. For the reasons stated 

below, I recommend that the District Court Judge (1) GRANT Razavi’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis, and (2) DISMISS her complaint because it does not establish 

federal subject matter jurisdiction.

 In her complaint, Razavi states that she was injured by dentist Vernon Miles Lew 

on August 29, 2012. Specifically, Razavi states that Lew “used excessive force, 

intentionally gave numerous forceful injections, did extremely poor work, used 

substandard material, and intentionally injured and damaged [her] tooth and surrounding 

tissues.” Dkt. No. 1. Further, Razavi states Lew breached his contract, breached 

professional conduct rules, “violated ADA rules,” and “made me suffer negligence and 

Case 5:16-cv-04969-EJD Document 10 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-04969 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

malpractice.” Id. She states that she lost her tooth as a result of Lew’s conduct and asserts 

“thousands of dollars of monetary and non-monetary damages.” Id. 

I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court may authorize the commencement of a civil 

action in forma pauperis if it is satisfied that the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filing 

fees necessary to pursue the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Here, Razavi submitted the 

required documentation and it is evident from the application that the listed assets and 

income are insufficient to enable her to pay the filing fees. Dkt. No. 2. Accordingly, I 

recommend that the District Court Judge GRANT Razavi’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis.

II. SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the 

Court if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

The Court first considers whether it possesses jurisdiction over this dispute. The 

federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction” and only have jurisdiction as authorized 

by the Constitution and Congress. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 

374 (1978). The party seeking to invoke federal court jurisdiction (here, plaintiff Razavi) 

has the burden of establishing that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. Scott v. 

Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court must presume a lack of 

jurisdiction until the plaintiff establishes otherwise. Id. 

Potential sources of subject matter jurisdiction in this case are: (1) federal question 

jurisdiction, and (2) diversity jurisdiction. I consider each jurisdictional source in turn.

“Federal question” jurisdiction is assessed under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The federal 

district courts have jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or 

treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case “arises under” federal law if a 

Case 5:16-cv-04969-EJD Document 10 Filed 10/06/16 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-04969 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

“well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or 

that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question 

of federal law.” Empire Healthcare Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689-90 (2006) 

(citations omitted).

Here, liberally construing Razavi’s complaint, she does not present a federal 

question sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint vaguely states 

that Lew “violated ADA rules” but does not specify what conduct violated what rule. The 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) is a federal 

law, but Razavi’s complaint does not plausibly allege how Lew could be liable under the 

ADA for her tooth and tissue injuries. For example, to prevail on a Title III discrimination 

claim under the ADA, Razavi would need to establish that (1) she is disabled within the 

meaning of the ADA; (2) defendant is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place 

of public accommodation; and (3) she was denied public accommodations by the 

defendant because of her disability. Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 

2007); 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (ADA prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations). 

As drafted, Razavi’s complaint does not establish an ADA claim.

“Diversity jurisdiction” is assessed under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court considers 

the citizenship of each party to the lawsuit, and there must be “total diversity” of 

citizenship between each plaintiff and each defendant and the amount in controversy must 

exceed $75,000. 

Here, the complaint does not allege the citizenship of any party, or an amount in 

controversy, so diversity jurisdiction is not satisfied. The address for defendant Lew on a 

letter attached to the complaint is a California address. If plaintiff and Lew are both 

California citizens, then there is no diversity of citizenship.

In conclusion, I find that Razavi’s complaint does not satisfy federal subject matter 

jurisdiction. It establishes neither a federal question nor diversity of citizenship. “If 

jurisdiction is lacking at the outset, the district court has no power to do anything with the 

case except dismiss.” Orff v. United States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1149 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Case 5:16-cv-04969-EJD Document 10 Filed 10/06/16 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-04969 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

Therefore, I recommend dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdiction.

Even if Razavi were able to establish federal jurisdiction, her complaint would also 

need to be amended to comply with the pleading rules of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

8. Rule 8 requires the complaint to contain a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing the pleader is entitled to relief. Liberally construed, Razavi’s complaint appears 

to state a claim for negligence and breach of contract under California law against Lew.

Much less clear is the basis of her claim under the ADA. 

III. CONCLUSION 

This case will be reassigned to a District Court Judge because not all parties have 

consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. Dkt. No. 7. I RECOMMEND that the 

District Court Judge (1) GRANT the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; and 

(2) DISMISS the case for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Any party may object to this recommendation, but must do so within fourteen days 

of being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A failure to file a timely objection will waive any 

opposition to the recommendation. 

Finally, the Court informs Razavi that 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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04969-EJD Document 10 Filed 10/06/16 Page 4 of 4