Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01339/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01339-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO NAVARRO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12CV1339-GPC(BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

LACK OF FEDERAL SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION; AND

DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AS

MOOT

[Doc. Nos. 2, 3.]

vs.

UCSD SCHOOL OF MEDICINE,

Defendant.

On June 5, 2012, Plaintiff Antonio Navarro, proceeding pro se, commenced this action against

Defendant UCSD School of Medicine. Plaintiff also moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and requests appointment of counsel. For the following reasons, the

Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP, sua sponte DISMISSES the complaint for lack of

federal subject matter jurisdiction, and DENIES Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel as

MOOT.

Discussion

I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff moves to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Section 1915(a) allows a court to

authorize a lawsuit’s commencement without payment of the filing fee if the plaintiff submits an

- 1 - [12cv1339-GPC(BLM) ]

Case 3:12-cv-01339-GPC-BLM Document 5 Filed 10/11/12 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

affidavit demonstrating his or her inability to pay the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Such affidavit

must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s assets. Id. Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit in

support of his IFP motion indicating that he is currently unemployed, receives $854 per month in

social security benefits, has $34 in a bank account, owns an automobile that is financed and may have

a property interest in his parents’ home. He states he has debt in the form of a credit card bill but does

not state the amount of the debt. Based on the affidavit, the Court finds Plaintiff has the ability to pay

the filing fee and does not meet the § 1915(a) requirements. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP.

II. Sua Sponte Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction

In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks the Court’s assistance in setting up a mediation process

between Plaintiff and the Admissions Committee at UCSD School of Medicine to obtain “UCSD

School of Med Accreditation to be accommodated at the VA San Diego Hospital.” (Dkt. No. 1.) 

It is well-established that a federal court cannot reach the merits of any dispute until it confirms

that it retains subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues presented. See Steel Co. v. Citizens

for a Better Environ., 523 U.S. 83, 95 (1998). Accordingly, federal courts are under a continuing duty

to confirm their jurisdictional power and are “obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises

as to [its] existence . . . .” Mt. HealthyCity Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977) 

(citations omitted). 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Unlike state courts, they have no ‘inherent’ or ‘general’ subject

matter jurisdiction. They can adjudicate only those cases which the Constitution and Congress

authorize them to adjudicate, i.e. those involving diversity of citizenship, a federal question, or to

which the United States is a party. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; see also Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. 

Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions and the burden of establishing

the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Subject matter

jurisdiction is determined from the face of the complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,

392 (1987) (“federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”).

- 2 - [12cv1339-GPC(BLM) ]

Case 3:12-cv-01339-GPC-BLM Document 5 Filed 10/11/12 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

In this case, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to invoke a federal question and Plaintiff has not shown

that diversity jurisdiction exists. Moreover, the United States is not a party to this case. As a result,

Plaintiff has not presented a sufficient basis for federal jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, the

Court sua sponte DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice. 

III. Request for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff also filed a request for appointment of counsel. Since the Court DISMISSES the

Complaint, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel as MOOT. 

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP and 

DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court also

DENIES Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel as MOOT. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff thirty

(30) days from the date stamped on this order to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies of

pleading identified above.

DATED: October 11, 2012

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - [12cv1339-GPC(BLM) ]

Case 3:12-cv-01339-GPC-BLM Document 5 Filed 10/11/12 Page 3 of 3