Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00587/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00587-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Stanley Fishman, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Joseph Clemons, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-587-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Plaintiff Stanley Fishman filed a Complaint in this Court on March 20, 2007. (Dkt.

1)

Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part, "A

pleading which sets forth a claim for relief ... shall contain (a) a short and plain statement of

the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends ...." The lack of subject matter

jurisdiction may be raised by the court sua sponte at any stage in the proceeding. "Nothing

is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction" because '[j]urisdiction is what

its power rests upon." In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other

grounds, Partington v. Gedan, 923 F.2d 686 (9th Cir. 1991).

 Based on a review of the Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege

a proper basis for invoking this Court's jurisdiction. Federal courts are presumptively

without jurisdiction over civil actions and the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists

rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir.

Case 2:07-cv-00587-SMM Document 5 Filed 06/12/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

1986). In light of Plaintiff's failure to meet his burden of establishing this Court's

jurisdiction, the Complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. 

Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.

(Dkt. 3) A review of the Court's records demonstrates that Plaintiff has filed twenty (20)

lawsuits in 2007 wherein he is seeking in forma pauperis status. The Court's docket reveals

that many of Plaintiff's other cases have been dismissed for similar reasons: lack of

jurisdiction and/or failure to state a claim for relief. Under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1), in forma

pauperis proceedings are subject to the Court's discretion. Other than a conclusory statement

of the claim, Plaintiff has failed to establish he is entitled to redress in this case. Therefore,

the Court will deny his application to proceed in form pauperis. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED DISMISSING Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. 1) is WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND for failure to allege a basis for federal court jurisdiction. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis. (Dkt. 3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not elect to file an amended

complaint alleging federal court jurisdiction by June 29, 2007, then the Clerk of Court shall

dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction without further order of the Court. 

DATED this 11th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00587-SMM Document 5 Filed 06/12/07 Page 2 of 2