Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02433/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02433-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

CARL A. WASHAM,

Plaintiff,

Civil No. 3:12CV2433-GPC-BLM

ORDER SUA SPONTE

DISMISSING SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

vs.

JEFF RABINE; SCHOOL DISTRICT;

COLLEGE POLICE,

HEADQUARTERS

Defendants.

On April 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint pursuant to the

Court’s order filed on January 16, 2013 sua sponte dismissing his suit for lack of

federal subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 11.) Based on the reasoning below, the

Court sua sponte dismisses the second amended complaint for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. 

Discussion

On November 13, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. 

(Dkt. No. 4.) An IFP action is subject to dismissal if the court determines that the

complaint is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 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

- 1 - 12CV2433-GPC-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-02433-GPC-BLM Document 12 Filed 05/01/13 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

adjudicate the issues presented. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environ., 523

U.S. 83, 94-95 (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. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v.

Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977) (citations omitted). 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. 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. See Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989). Federal courts are

presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions and the burden of establishing the

contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.

Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

The second amended complaint presents many factual statements; however,

Plaintiff does not allege any causes of action based on these facts. As such, he has not

established federal subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity or a federal question. 

Accordingly the Court DISMISSES the second amended complaint for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES the second

amended complaint without prejudice for lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction. TheCourt

GRANTS Plaintiff thirty (30) days from the date stamped on this order to file a third

amended complaint curing the deficiencies of pleading identified above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 1, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12CV2433-GPC-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-02433-GPC-BLM Document 12 Filed 05/01/13 Page 2 of 2