Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00227/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00227-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

JAN WOJTASZEK,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-cv-227-MMA (JMA)

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF

SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION; 

[Doc. No. 1]

DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AS

MOOT

[Doc. No. 2]

vs.

TRAMVIEW INVESTORS,

Defendant.

On January 27, 2012, Jan Wojtaszek, proceeding pro se, filed the above-captioned action

against Tramview Investors. [Doc. No. 1.] Along with the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to

appoint counsel. [Doc. No. 2.] For the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES the

complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and DENIES the motion for

appointment of counsel as MOOT.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

- 1 - 12-cv-227-MMA (JMA)

Case 3:12-cv-00227-MMA-JMA Document 3 Filed 02/02/12 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

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and therefore, can only hear certain types of

claims that the Constitution or Congress has authorized them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v. Guardian

Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). For example, common bases for federal

jurisdiction include actions: where there is diversity of citizenship among the parties (28 U.S.C. §

1332); that present a federal question (28 U.S.C. § 1331); or are based on statutes that regulate

specific subject matters such as civil rights, antitrust, copyright, and trademark. Thus, “[i]t is

presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the

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

“The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving all jurisdictional facts.” Indus.

Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors

Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)); Fenton v. Freedman, 748 F.2d 1358, 1359, n. 1 (9th

Cir. 1984). Courts must presume a lack of jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise.

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. To overcome that presumption, the plaintiff must provide a statement

of the grounds for the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction. FED.R.CIV.P. 8(a) (“A pleading .

. . must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction[.]”).

It is well-established, however, that a court is to “liberally construe” the complaint of a

plaintiff appearing pro se. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987); see also

Davis v. Silva, 511 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2008) (“More generally, the Court has held pro se

pleadings to a less stringent standard than briefs by counsel and reads pro se pleadings generously,

‘however inartfully pleaded,’” citing Haines, 404 U.S. at 519, 520); Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of

North America, 980 F.2d 1261, 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that the entry of a default judgment

“against a pro se litigant . . . for essentially a mistake of form strikes us as an unjust and excessive

sanction”). These “liberal pleading standards” are not without limits, however, and even a pro se

litigant must, in order to avoid dismissal, make allegations that vest the court with subject matter

jurisdiction. See Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996).

/ / /

/ / /

- 2 - 12-cv-227-MMA (JMA)

Case 3:12-cv-00227-MMA-JMA Document 3 Filed 02/02/12 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

DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff summarily states the Court has jurisdiction. The complaint, however, does

not allege any federal claims. Plaintiff’s complaint is a single paragraph, which states in its

entirety: 

I lived in the Tramview Park 10 years. Park had one master electric meter. 

Individual meter were old. Rust and not working. I was charged from $30 to $300

when I used electricity from $15 to $30 monthly. That was confirmed by the

Edison Electric Co. When I objected this by the manager, he become angry at me

and started harassing me. By the angry manager before the Court was involved. 

Not considering that he had my monthly deposit which was not still returnet to me. 

So, in a few days they evicted me leaving my own mobile home and all my

possesion for destruction. I had no place to go, so I have been sleeping in my car

for almost four (4) years. I want to believe in it! My dramatic letters to highest

authorities are the cry for help. In view of this fact, I request a fair revision of my

case.

Plaintiff’s limited allegations do not raise a federal question. 

Nor does the Complaint indicate diversity jurisdiction exists, as the amount in controversy

is unclear and it is not evident whether the parties are citizens are different states.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice, and

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel as MOOT. Plaintiff shall have twenty-one

(21) days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint. If no amended complaint is

filed this matter shall remain closed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 2, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12-cv-227-MMA (JMA)

Case 3:12-cv-00227-MMA-JMA Document 3 Filed 02/02/12 Page 3 of 3