Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04764/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04764-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER BROWN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUE SUMMERSET, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-04764 SBA (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff is incarcerated at Ironwood State Prison in Blythe, California. He filed the instant

products liability action against Defendants California Department of Corrections Menu Coordinator

Sue Summerset, Kellog, Austin Quality Foods, Peanut Corporation of America, King Nut, ABC

Ventures, LA Foods, and "Does 1 to 20." The complaint alleges that Defendant Summerset and the

aforementioned corporations are liable for producing and manufacturing allegedly "spoiled food." 

The Court previously granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

 "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized

by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree." Kokkonen v. Guardian

Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The court is presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the

contrary appears affirmatively from the record. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342

n.3 (2006). Federal courts have a duty to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the

merits of a case. See S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 922 F.2d 498, 502 (9th Cir. 1990). 

"If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss

the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

The complaint must demonstrate that the district court has either federal question or diversity

jurisdiction. The diversity jurisdiction statute confers jurisdiction in cases where the parties are

citizens of different states and where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

The diversity statute is strictly construed, and any doubts are resolved against finding jurisdiction. 

Case 4:09-cv-04764-SBA Document 5 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.09\Brown4764.dismiss(diversity).wpd 2

Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 1983). Because the citizenship of

the parties is a jurisdictional fact in diversity actions, the burden is on the plaintiff -- the party

invoking federal jurisdiction -- to plead and prove such facts. Bautista v. Pan American World

Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Plaintiff alleges that this Court has jurisdiction based solely on diversity. (Compl. at 2.) He

seeks damages above the jurisdictional minimum and claims that the parties are citizens of different

states. (Id.) However, he misconstrues the requirements of § 1332. The Supreme Court has held

that the § 1332 provision "between . . . citizens of different States" requires complete diversity

between all plaintiffs and all defendants. Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). In

other words, no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. See id. Based on the

record before the Court, Defendant Summerset is a California citizen; Plaintiff is as well. The

burden is on Plaintiff to plead and prove otherwise. Bautista, 828 F.2d at 552. In the absence of

such proof, diversity jurisdiction does not exist. 

In addition, there is no federal question jurisdiction here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff

has only pled negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability and intentional infliction of emotional

distress, all of which are state law causes of action. (Compl. at 2-6.) 

In light of the foregoing, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling his claims in state court. The Court has rendered its final decision on this matter; therefore,

this Order TERMINATES Plaintiff's case. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending

motions as moot, including Plaintiff's Motion for Change of Venue (docket no. 4), and close the file. 

This Order terminates Docket no. 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 8/9/10 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-04764-SBA Document 5 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.09\Brown4764.dismiss(diversity).wpd 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER BROWN JR. et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUE SUMMERSET et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-04764 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on August 9, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Walter Brown P-76331

Ironwood State Prison

P.O. Box 2199

Blyth, CA 92226

Dated: August 9, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-04764-SBA Document 5 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 3