Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02930/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02930-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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 - 11cv2930

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENT H. GAFFNEY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-2930-H (BGS)

ORDER: 

(1) DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF

THIRTY DAYS TO AMEND HIS

COMPLAINT; AND

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AS MOOT

vs.

BRANDEN JACKSON,

Defendant.

The District of Alaska transferred this case to the Southern District of California

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that jurisdiction

is based on diversity of citizenship. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) Defendant has not paid his filing fee,

but for the reasons set forth below, the Court sua sponte dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend, and denies as

moot Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

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

of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 551-552 (1989).

Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases which the Constitution and Congress authorize

them to adjudicate. Id. Here, Plaintiff alleges that jurisdiction is based on diversity of

Case 3:11-cv-02930-H-BGS Document 3 Filed 12/21/11 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 - 11cv2930

citizenship. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, and is between:

citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. §1332. Based on the Court’s review, Plaintiff’s

complaint does not satisfy the amount in controversy requirement, and it is unclear whether

diversity of citizenship is satisfied. Because federal courts are presumptively without

jurisdiction over civil actions and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party

asserting jurisdiction, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden that

subject matter jurisdiction is proper. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Accordingly, the Court

dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint and grants Plaintiff leave to amend within thirty days of this

order. Further, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 21, 2011 ________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:11-cv-02930-H-BGS Document 3 Filed 12/21/11 Page 2 of 2