Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04876/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04876-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER KYLE PRATER,

Plaintiff,

v.

IRVIN GOODWIN; HVEHF VETERAN 

CENTER,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-04876-HRL 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

ORDER SETTING FURTHER CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

The court having been advised that a volunteer attorney to conduct defendant Goodwin’s 

deposition could not be obtained, the court’s August 7, 2015 order referring plaintiff to the Federal 

Pro Bono Project is vacated and the stay is lifted.

The parties shall appear for a further case management conference on October 27, 2015, 

1:30 p.m. A further joint case management statement shall be filed no later than October 20, 

2015.

Additionally, no later than October 20, 2015, defendants shall file a response to this order 

to show cause re this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants removed this matter from 

state court, asserting federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on the ground that this 

action “arises under claims for Invasion of Privacy, Discrimination and Civil Rights and other 

Constitutional violations.” (Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal ¶ 3). Defendants bear the burden of 

demonstrating that removal is proper. Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 

Case 5:14-cv-04876-HRL Document 56 Filed 09/17/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). Additionally, 

the court has a continuing duty to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(h).

On the record before this court, the basis for any constitutional claims against defendants---

the sole asserted ground for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction---is unclear. For example, 

insofar as plaintiff’s complaint might be read to assert various constitutional claims under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, such claims would not be cognizable against private individuals and entities 

because such individuals and entities do not act under color of state law, an essential element of a 

§ 1983 action. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980); Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 

F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 102 S. Ct. 2764, 2768-69 and n.6 

(1982) (only state actors or private parties acting in concert with state actors are subject to a 

section 1983 suit). Defendants previously have represented to the court that any claims under the 

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments do not apply to them “because they are a private, non-profit 

group and not state actors.” (Dkt. 20 at 4-5).

Defendants shall, by the October 20 deadline, clarify the basis for their assertion of federal 

question jurisdiction. They shall provide whatever declarations or other evidence is necessary.

On the present record, there appears to be no basis for diversity jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1332 (and defendants never asserted diversity jurisdiction). Nevertheless, in their 

October 20 response, defendants shall confirm whether or not that is the case.

At this time, this court is seeking a response only from defendants inasmuch as they bear 

the burden of demonstrating federal jurisdiction and the information the court seeks likely is solely 

within defendants’ knowledge or possession and control. Accordingly, unless specifically 

directed to do so, plaintiff shall not file papers with the court in response to this order. He 

will have an opportunity to discuss the matter with the court at the October 27 case management 

conference.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2015 ________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04876-HRL Document 56 Filed 09/17/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5:14-cv-04876-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Christopher Kyle Prater kcprater74@gmail.com

Jennifer J. Capabianco jcapabianco@selmanbreitman.com, ttaylor@selmanbreitman.com

Case 5:14-cv-04876-HRL Document 56 Filed 09/17/15 Page 3 of 3