Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02222/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02222-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

THOMAS MELGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-2222 TLN CKD PS

ORDER AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by 

Local Rule 302(c)(21).

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is unable 

to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma 

pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In the complaint, plaintiff complains about defendant opening unauthorized accounts. The 

complaint, however, does not allege a basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this court. It appears 

that plaintiff is alleging only state law claims. The federal courts are courts of limited 

jurisdiction. In the absence of a basis for federal jurisdiction, plaintiff’s claims cannot proceed in 

this venue. Because there is no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction evident in the 

complaint, plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. 

Case 2:16-cv-02222-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 09/28/16 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

Failure to allege a proper basis for subject matter jurisdiction will result in a recommendation that 

the action be dismissed.

Plaintiff has requested appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has 

ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in 

§ 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain 

exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not find 

the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel will 

therefore be denied.

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted;

2. No later than October 28, 2016, plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not 

be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

3. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.

Dated: September 28, 2016

4 melger.ifp-nosmj.cou

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-02222-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 2