Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00119/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00119-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELSINA KILPATRICK,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDY MOLINA,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-0119-KJM-KJN PS

ORDER

Plaintiff Elsina Kilpatrick, proceeding without counsel, has requested leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 3.)1 Plaintiff’s application in support of 

her request to proceed in forma pauperis makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Accordingly, the undersigned grants plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.

The determination that a plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the

required inquiry. A federal court has an independent duty to assess whether federal subject 

matter jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. 

Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had 

a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the 

 

1

This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:15-cv-00119-KJM-KJN Document 5 Filed 03/03/15 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

parties raised the issue or not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 

1996). The court must sua sponte dismiss the case if, at any time, it determines that it lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A federal district court generally has 

original jurisdiction over a civil action when: (1) a federal question is presented in an action 

“arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” or (2) there is complete 

diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1332(a).

Here, plaintiff’s complaint is somewhat vague and confusing, but appears to allege that 

she had an agreement with defendant to rent defendant’s property with the assistance of the 

Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency’s “Housing Choice Voucher Program.” 

However, according to plaintiff, defendant then refused to submit the required paperwork to allow 

“full processing of the agreement,” even though defendant had already taken at least some part of 

plaintiff’s deposit for the rental. Although not entirely clear from the complaint, it appears that 

plaintiff is now required to leave the property, either because she cannot afford the rent without 

the voucher program subsidy or because defendant has terminated the tenancy. Plaintiff claims 

that defendant’s actions present a special hardship to her, because she is disabled and recovering 

from a brain injury, and had already incurred the expenses of moving her belongings, having her 

electricity turned on, and setting up cable service at the property. Plaintiff claims to have been 

subjected to “social discrimination.” (See ECF No. 1.) 

Even when liberally construed, plaintiff’s complaint does not assert any claims arising 

under federal law. The complaint does not reference or clearly invoke a specific federal statute. 

As such, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction. Furthermore, there is no diversity of 

citizenship, because plaintiff and defendant both appear to be citizens of California, and 

according to the civil cover sheet, plaintiff seeks only $15,000.00 in damages. Therefore, the 

court dismisses plaintiff’s complaint for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, but with leave 

to amend.

If plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, it shall be captioned “First Amended 

Complaint”; shall clearly specify the federal statute under which plaintiff’s claim is brought; and 

Case 2:15-cv-00119-KJM-KJN Document 5 Filed 03/03/15 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

shall outline specific facts showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief under that statute, including 

sufficient background facts to allow the court to understand what defendant’s actions were and 

how such actions have harmed plaintiff. Any first amended complaint shall also outline the 

specific relief sought.

Importantly, nothing in this order requires plaintiff to file an amended complaint in federal 

court. Indeed, if plaintiff concludes, as may be the case, that defendant’s actions only potentially

give rise to some type of state law property or tort claim, such a claim should instead be filed and 

pursued in state court. 

Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) is granted.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, but with leave to amend.

3. Within 28 days, plaintiff shall file either (a) a first amended complaint in compliance 

with this order or (b) a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.

4. Failure to timely comply with this order may result in dismissal of the action with 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 3, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-00119-KJM-KJN Document 5 Filed 03/03/15 Page 3 of 3