Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00375/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00375-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

---

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 - 11CV375

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY PAULINE RIVERA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11CV375 JLS (WVG)

ORDER (1) GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND (2) SUA SPONTE

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 2.)

vs.

MARTEN TRANSPORT SERVICES, LTD,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the instant complaint along with a motion to proceed in

forma pauperis. A Federal Court may authorize the commencement of an action without the

prepayment of fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that

she is unable to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff is current employed as a

substitute teacher. (Memo. ISO Motion at 2.) Her employment is on an as-needed basis and she

has had only one substitute job since late August 2010. (Id.) Her only other source of income is

$500 she receives each month from Marten Rivera. (Id.) Her assets are limited to a checking

account containing $4.80, a 2000 Honda Accord, and a non-functioning 1992 Honda Civic. (Id.) 

She also carries $47,000 of debt. (Id.) Based on this information, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

Case 3:11-cv-00375-JLS-WVG Document 3 Filed 03/15/11 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 - 11CV375

U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review. Dismissal is appropriate if the

complaint is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

seek[s] monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);

Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001). 

The instant complaint fails to state a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction and should

be dismissed. Plaintiff alleges this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1),

diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires, among other things, complete diversity of

citizenship between the parties. Fid. and Guar. Life Ins. Co. v. Albertson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

44689, at *3. Plaintiff alleges that she is a citizen of California. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is

a corporation incorporated in California and has a principal place of business in Wisconsin. A

corporation is a citizen of both the state in which it has been incorporated and the state where it

has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Based on Plaintiff’s allegations,

Plaintiff, a citizen of California, and Defendant, also a citizen of California, are not completely

diverse. This Court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to diversity jurisdiction.

Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, Plaintiff’s complaint is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 14

days of this Order being electronically docketed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 15, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00375-JLS-WVG Document 3 Filed 03/15/11 Page 2 of 2