Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01402/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01402-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cathryn Volz, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Safeway Stores Incorporated,,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1402-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Cathryn Volz commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint against

Defendant Safeway Stores Incorporated on July 15, 2011. Doc 1. Plaintiff has also filed a

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 2. For the following reasons, the Court

will dismiss the complaint in its entirety without prejudice for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction and deny Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

I. Background.

Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that she slipped and fell while shopping at Safeway

Store No. 413 in Phoenix, Arizona on July 19, 2009. Plaintiff further alleges that she

suffered injuries as a result of the slip and fall.

II. Dismissal of the Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction.

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

authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Pursuant to federal statutes, this Court has subject matter

jurisdiction over a case only if the complaint alleges a federal cause of action or the amount

Case 2:11-cv-01402-MEA Document 4 Filed 07/22/11 Page 1 of 6
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 -

in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).

“The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving all jurisdictional facts.”

Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing McNutt v.

Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)); see Fenton v. Freedman,

748 F.2d 1358, 1359, n.1 (9th Cir. 1984). Courts must presume a lack of jurisdiction until

the plaintiff proves otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. To overcome that presumption,

the plaintiff must provide a statement of the grounds for the court’s subject matter

jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (“A pleading . . . must contain (1) a short and plain

statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction[.]”). 

Plaintiff’s complaint contains no statement of the basis for jurisdiction. Doc. 1. The

complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a resident of Arizona and that all of Defendant’s actions

took place within Arizona, Doc. 1, but these statements are not sufficient to invoke the

Court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s claims are not brought under any identified federal statute.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor does the complaint assert that the parties are citizens of different

states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

A federal court “may dismiss sua sponte if jurisdiction is lacking.” Fiedler,

714 F.2d at 78-79 (citing Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Mich. R.y. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379,

382 (1884)); see Franklin v. Or. State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that

the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”

(emphasis added)). Plaintiff has not shown that her claim against Safeway is subject to

federal question or diversity jurisdiction. The Court will dismiss the complaint against

Defendant Safeway sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3); Franklin, 662 F.2d at 1343 (affirming sua sponte dismissal of claims that did not

state a federal cause of action).

III. Leave to Amend the Complaint.

“The court should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.”

Case 2:11-cv-01402-MEA Document 4 Filed 07/22/11 Page 2 of 6
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

- 3 -

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; see 28 U.S.C. § 1653 (authorizing amendment of pleadings to cure

defective jurisdictional statement). In the Ninth Circuit, “[a] pro se litigant must be given

leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the

complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t,

839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir.

1987)); see also Waters v. Young, 100 F.3d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1996) (“As a general

matter, this court has long sought to ensure that pro se litigants do not unwittingly fall victim

to procedural requirements that they may, with some assistance from the court, be able to

satisfy.”). The Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice and allow Plaintiff to file

an amended complaint, consistent with this order, that properly invokes the Court’s

jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall have until Friday, August 19, 2011, to file an amended

complaint.

The Court is required to give some guidance to a pro se plaintiff regarding the

deficiencies of dismissed claims in a complaint. Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 625. Plaintiff’s

complaint has failed adequately to state the basis on which this Court may exercise

jurisdiction over her claims against the Defendant. Plaintiff is advised that her amended

complaint must include a “short and plain statement of the grounds” for this Court’s

jurisdiction over each claim against each Defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to

federal statutes, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case only if (a) the complaint

alleges a federal claim (“federal question jurisdiction”) or (b) the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states (“diversity jurisdiction”). See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).

The Court has diversity jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different states

involving claims greater than $75,000 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which provides:

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is

between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Section 1332 requires

complete diversity between the parties. See, e.g., Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68

Case 2:11-cv-01402-MEA Document 4 Filed 07/22/11 Page 3 of 6
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

- 4 -

(1996). In other words, the citizenship of each plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship

of each defendant. Id. In determining the existence of diversity jurisdiction, “corporations

are citizens of both the state where they are incorporated and the state where they have their

principal place of business.” Tosco Corp. v. Cmtys. for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495, 499

(9th Cir. 2001); 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (c)(1) (“[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of

any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place

of business.”).

The Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving federal questions

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides: “The district courts shall have original

jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

States.” Section 1331 does not itself create federal jurisdiction; it “confers jurisdiction only

where a federal question is otherwise at issue.” Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227, 229 (9th Cir.

1980). In general, a federal question invokes a “right or immunity created by the

Constitution or laws of the United States.” Gully v. First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112

(1936). That federal right or immunity “must be an element, and an essential one, of the

plaintiff’s cause of action.” Id. While it is not an infallible rule, if federal law creates the

cause of action, federal question jurisdiction will generally lie. Murphey v. Lanier,

204 F.3d 911, 912 (9th Cir. 2000); see Am. Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.,

241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916) (“A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.”). 

A. Amended Complaint.

1. Diversity of citizenship.

 If Plaintiff intends to invoke diversity as the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over

her claims against Defendant Safeway, she must allege both that Plaintiff’s citizenship is

diverse from that of Defendant Safeway and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). To that end, Plaintiff must include in her complaint a statement of:

(a) her own state citizenship; (b) the citizenship of Defendant Safeway (both Safeway’s state

of incorporation and the state of Safeway’s principal place of business); and (c) an amount

in controversy in excess of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), (c)(1). Plaintiff is directed to

Case 2:11-cv-01402-MEA Document 4 Filed 07/22/11 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 -

Form 7 of the Appendix of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a well-pleaded

jurisdictional statement.

2. Federal questions.

If Plaintiff intends to invoke federal question jurisdiction in this Court, Plaintiff must

in good faith allege claims against Defendant Safeway “arising under the Constitution, laws,

or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff must explicitly assert a claim

against Defendant on the basis of a federal statute, the federal Constitution, etc. Plaintiff is

directed to Form 7 of the Appendix of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a wellpleaded jurisdictional statement.

IV. Plaintiff’s Obligations.

Plaintiff is advised that she must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of

Arizona (“Local Rules”), which may be obtained in the Clerk of Court’s office

(www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/ and www.azd.uscourts.gov). For purposes of the amended

complaint, Plaintiff is directed to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)

provides that a complaint “must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for

the court’s jurisdiction, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

These pleading requirements shall be set forth in separate and discrete paragraphs. Rule 8(d)

provides that each such paragraph “must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(d)(1). The forms contained in the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure –

which include forms regarding jurisdictional statements and sample complaints on various

causes of action – “suffice under the[] rules and illustrate the simplicity and brevity that the[]

rules contemplate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 84.

If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action or to comply with the rules or any Court order,

the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se plaintiff’s complaint for

Case 2:11-cv-01402-MEA Document 4 Filed 07/22/11 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

failing to comply with a court order).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

2. Plaintiff has until August 19, 2011 to file an amended complaint consistent

with this order.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied

without prejudice.

4. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action without further notice if

Plaintiff fails to comply with this deadline.

DATED this 22nd day of July, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01402-MEA Document 4 Filed 07/22/11 Page 6 of 6