Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02776/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02776-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
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

MICHAEL DEAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVE COMBS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-2776 TLN CKD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this action, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, complains about what appears to be a breach of 

contract dispute involving landscaping services. The complaint, however, does not allege a basis 

for subject matter jurisdiction in this court other than citing “federal question” jurisdiction, 

without setting a proper basis therefor. The complaint only cites “$2,000,000” as the basis for 

federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff was accordingly 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. However, the response does not 

set forth a proper basis for subject matter jurisdiction. There appears to be no federal question 

subject matter jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction is also lacking because the parties are not 

diverse.

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

subject matter jurisdiction. 

Case 2:16-cv-02776-TLN-CKD Document 5 Filed 12/09/16 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

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: December 9, 2016

4 dean2776.nosmj.57

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-02776-TLN-CKD Document 5 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 2