Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01025/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01025-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

J. JESUS RAMOS RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MARIA XOCHITL MEJIA TORRES, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-1025-DC-SCR 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 Plaintiff J. Jesus Ramos Rodriguez is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was 

referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

On April 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint and paid the civil filing fee. On April 24, 2024, 

Magistrate Judge Barnes issued an Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 5. The Order observed that 

the complaint was “sparse and difficult to decipher,” but appeared to challenge state divorce 

proceedings. ECF No. 5 at 4. The Order explained that federal courts are courts of limited 

jurisdiction and that it appeared the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The Order further 

explained that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine would preclude a challenge to the state court divorce 

judgment. Id. at 3-4. The Order directed that within 14 days “plaintiff shall show cause in 

writing as to why this action should not be dismissed due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” 

Id. at 4. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the OSC or file anything further in this action. 

Case 2:24-cv-01025-DC-SCR Document 8 Filed 10/30/24 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 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause, in 

writing, within 14 days, why the failure to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause should 

not result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

and/or for failure to comply with the Court’s order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 

and Local Rule 110. If Plaintiff fails to respond, the court will recommend dismissal of this 

action. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 29, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-01025-DC-SCR Document 8 Filed 10/30/24 Page 2 of 2