Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00607/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00607-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331cv Fed. Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

19-cv-607-GPC(NLS)

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

SUE ELLEN HOLMSTRAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO SUPERIOR COURT, et 

als.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-cv-607-GPC(NLS)

ORDER:

1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS, [Dkt. No. 2] AND

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION AND FAILING TO 

STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

On April 2, 2019, Plaintiff Sue Ellen Holmstrand (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, 

filed a complaint against the San Diego Superior Court, County of San Diego, California 

Judicial Council, California Administrative Office of the Courts and the San Diego 

County Bar Association. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) She also filed a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) Based on the reasoning below, the Court GRANTS 

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and sua sponte DISMISSES the 

action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 

Case 3:19-cv-00607-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 04/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

19-cv-607-GPC(NLS)

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

U.S.C. § 1915e(2).

A. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

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 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 

prepay the entire fee only if she is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 

Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). The plaintiff must submit an affidavit 

demonstrating her inability to pay the filing fee, and the affidavit must include a complete 

statement of the plaintiff’s assets. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

Here, Plaintiff submitted a declaration reporting that she is 70 years old, retired and 

receives $799.00/month from Social Security and $130.72/month in SSI. (Dkt. No. 2 at 

1.) She has $165 in her savings or checking account and owns a 2007 Toyota Matrix 

with a value of around $1,500. (Id. at 2.) She claims her expenses are around 

$593/month. (Id.) Based on these facts, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has 

demonstrated an inability to pay the filing fee and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave 

to proceed IFP. 

B. Sua Sponte Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

A complaint filed by any person proceeding IFP pursuant to § 1915(a) is subject to 

mandatory sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court if it is “frivolous, or malicious; 

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not 

limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). § 

1915(e)(2) mandates that a court reviewing a complaint filed pursuant to the IFP 

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing that the 

complaint be served by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127.

Case 3:19-cv-00607-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 04/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

19-cv-607-GPC(NLS)

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

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

Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this 

limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party 

asserting jurisdiction.” Id. 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. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environ., 523 U.S. 83, 

94-95 (1988). 

Federal subject matter jurisdiction may be based on (1) federal question 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

The complaint must establish either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the 

plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of substantial questions of 

federal law. Franchise Tax Board of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for 

Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10–11 (1983). Alternatively, a federal court may have 

diversity jurisdiction over an action involving citizens of different states where the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “The essential elements of 

diversity jurisdiction, including the diverse residence of all parties, must be affirmatively 

alleged in the pleadings.” Bautista v. Pan Am. World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 

(9th Cir. 1987). 

Here, Plaintiff complains about the state court’s placement of her name on the 

Vexatious Litigant list and seeks immediate removal of her name from that list so she can 

file a complaint against Hazar, Inc., not a defendant in the case. She claims she made 

multiple unsuccessful requests to have her name removed and as a result, she has been 

harmed by her inability to seek relief in the courts. On the caption of her complaint, she 

seeks damages and injunctive relief. She also summarily claims “[t]his is clearly a 

violation on Civil Rights.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) However, Plaintiff does not assert a basis 

for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction; no federal question is alleged and no diversity 

of citizenship exists. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the complaint for lack of 

Case 3:19-cv-00607-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 04/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

19-cv-607-GPC(NLS)

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

subject matter jurisdiction. 

Moreover, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8(a)(2), a pleading must 

contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While a plaintiff need not give “detailed factual 

allegations,” a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts that, if true, “raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). 

To state a claim upon which relief may be granted “a complaint must contain sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 547). A 

claim is facially plausible when the factual allegations permit “the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

Here, Plaintiff has not asserted any causes of action and has not provided sufficient 

facts to support a claim as to each Defendant named in the complaint. Accordingly, the 

Complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 8 and is subject to dismissal. 

Finally, Plaintiff alleges claims against the Superior Court of California and 

California Judicial Council.1 Under the Eleventh Amendment, agencies of the state are 

immune in federal court.” Mitchell v. Los Angeles Community College Dist., 861 F.2d 

198, 201 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Under the Eleventh Amendment, agencies of the state are 

immune from private damage actions or suits for injunctive relief brought in federal 

court.”); Montana v. Goldin, 394 F.3d 1189, 1195 (9th Cir. 2005) (state agencies are 

protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity). The Judicial Council is “an agency in the 

judicial branch of state government.” Sara M. v. Superior Ct., 36 Cal. 4th 998, 1013

(2005). Moreover, the Superior Court of California is immune from suit under § 1983. 

Serrano v. People of State of Cal., 361 F.2d 474, 474 (9th Cir. 1966). Thus, Defendants 

Superior Court of California and California Judicial Council are immune from suit and 

 

1 Plaintiff also named California Administrative Office of the Courts as a defendant but it does not 

appear that California Administrative Office of the Courts is a state entity. 

Case 3:19-cv-00607-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 04/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

19-cv-607-GPC(NLS)

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

must be dismissed. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) (court must dismiss an action 

“at any time” if it “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.”). 

Conclusion

In sum, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and

sua sponte DISMISSES the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure 

to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00607-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 04/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5