Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01786/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01786-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAYMOND CHARLES VAN DEN 

HEUVEL,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-1786 GEB CKD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. In this action, plaintiff 

alleges claims arising out of his adoptive birth certificate and plaintiff’s efforts to become a 

naturalized citizen. 

The complaint alleges diversity as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this court. 

Diversity jurisdiction is lacking in this case because both plaintiff and defendant are citizens of 

California. Because there is no other basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction evident in the 

complaint, plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff has filed a response to the order to show cause in which he alleges that subject 

matter jurisdiction is proper because many of the events of which he complains took place in 

federal facilities. Plaintiff’s response fails to establish federal question jurisdiction. There being 

Case 2:16-cv-01786-GEB-CKD Document 5 Filed 08/11/16 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

no evident basis for subject matter jurisdiction, the court will recommend that this action be 

dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: August 11, 2016

4 vandenheuvel1786.nosmj.57

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-01786-GEB-CKD Document 5 Filed 08/11/16 Page 2 of 2