Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00038/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00038-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

MARY PAULINE RIVERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTEN TRANSPORT and

HIRERIGHT,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11CV38 JAH(JMA)

ORDER SUA SPONTE

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL AND MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS MOOT

Plaintiff, a non-prisoner appearing pro se, filed the instant complaint, along with a

motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for appointment of counsel. All parties

instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States,

except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the

entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by

any person seeking to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject

to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is

“frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeking

monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);

Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C.

Case 3:11-cv-00038-JAH-JMA Document 5 Filed 02/10/11 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 1

Plaintiff has also failed to allege the citizenship of herself and the defendant, or an amount in

controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

2

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the Court reviewing a

complaint filed pursuant to the in forma pauperis provisions of Section 1915 make and rule

on its own motion to dismiss before directing that the complaint be served by the U.S.

Marshal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127.

This Court finds the instant complaint fails to state a basis for federal court subject

matter jurisdiction, subjecting the complaint to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to

Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See California Diversified

Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974)(it is well settled that a

court can dismiss a complaint sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction). Plaintiff, a truck driver,

alleges that her employer asked her to make a delivery that would cause her to run afoul

of legal restrictions that limit the number of hours a truck driver can continuously drive

their vehicle. Because plaintiff did not want to violate those legal restrictions, the delivery

was late. Plaintiff contends the late delivery caused the truck company to issue a bad

report against plaintiff that will remain on her record until 2016. According to the

Complaint, this blemish on plaintiff’s record prevents her from obtaining a driving

position at another trucking company. 

However, plaintiff does not indicate how these facts invoke federal jurisdiction.

Although plaintiff checked the “federal question” box on her civil cover sheet to invoke

federal question jurisdiction, the complaint must allege that the “action[] aris[es] under

the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff’s

complaint does not so allege. Thus, absent an averment, federal question jurisdiction is

lacking and the complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3).1

 

///

///

///

Case 3:11-cv-00038-JAH-JMA Document 5 Filed 02/10/11 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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The instant complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot.

Dated: February 10, 2011

 

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00038-JAH-JMA Document 5 Filed 02/10/11 Page 3 of 3