Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01807/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01807-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
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

CHARLTON LEE CURRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-1807-TLN-KJN PS

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff Charlton Lee Curry, who proceeds in this action without counsel, has requested 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.)1 Pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915, the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if it determines that the 

allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.

For the reasons discussed below, the court concludes that it lacks federal subject matter 

jurisdiction over the action. Accordingly, the court recommends that the action be dismissed 

without prejudice, and that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis in this court be 

denied as moot. 

 

1

This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1).

Case 2:16-cv-01807-TLN-KJN Document 3 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 3
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

A federal court has an independent duty to assess whether federal subject matter 

jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. 

Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had a duty 

to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties 

raised the issue or not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The court must sua sponte dismiss the case if, at any time, it determines that it lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A federal district court generally has original 

jurisdiction over a civil action when: (1) a federal question is presented in an action “arising 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” or (2) there is complete diversity of 

citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).

Here, plaintiff alleges various irregularities and violations with respect to the loan and 

mortgage related to plaintiff’s real property located on Woodwillow Lane in Elk Grove, 

California, which was sold at a purportedly illegal foreclosure sale on April 29, 2016. Plaintiff 

alleges the following claims against defendants Wells Fargo Bank (and predecessors/related 

entities); NDEX West, LLC; Legacy Mortgage and Real Estate Inc.; Ali Hashemi; Majid 

Mashhadialireza; and Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc.: (1) violation of California 

Financial Code section 50505; (2) accounting; (3) violation of California Commercial Code 

section 9313; (4) violation of California Civil Code section 2932.5; (5) fraud; (6) slander of title; 

(7) cancellation of cloud; (8) quiet title; (9) rescission; (10) violation of California Business and 

Professions Code section 17200; (11) civil conspiracy; (12) injunctive relief; and (13) illegal sale 

and foreclosure. (See generally ECF No. 1.) 

In this case, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the action, because 

plaintiff does not assert any federal claims. Furthermore, there is no diversity of citizenship 

jurisdiction, because plaintiff and at least some of the defendants are citizens of California. See

http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/. Therefore, the court recommends that the action be dismissed for lack 

of federal subject matter jurisdiction. However, in recommending dismissal, the court expresses 

no opinion regarding the merits of plaintiff’s claims. Such dismissal should be without prejudice, 

allowing plaintiff to pursue his claims in state court, if viable. 

Case 2:16-cv-01807-TLN-KJN Document 3 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court (ECF No. 2) be denied as 

moot.

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

In light of these recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading,

discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of these findings and 

recommendations. Other than objections to the findings and recommendations or non-frivolous 

motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any pleadings or motions 

until the findings and recommendations are resolved.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: September 9, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-01807-TLN-KJN Document 3 Filed 09/09/16 Page 3 of 3