Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02646/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02646-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYRNA HUBBARD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2646 FCD DAD PS

vs.

REGGIE THEUS, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested leave to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The proceeding has been referred to the undersigned in

accordance with Local Rule 72-302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

A filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil action in a federal district

court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The district court may authorize the commencement of an action

“without prepayment of fees or security therefor” by an individual who submits an affidavit

demonstrating his or her inability to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Here, plaintiff indicates in her in forma pauperis application that she is not

currently employed. However, plaintiff has failed to provide information about the date of her

last employment, the amount of take-home pay, payment intervals, and the employer’s name and

address. Plaintiff indicates that she received money in the past twelve months from “other

Case 2:07-cv-02646-FCD-DAD Document 3 Filed 01/02/08 Page 1 of 4
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

 The judicial power of the United States is vested in “one Supreme Court, and in such 1

inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” U.S. Const. Art. III,

§ 1. Congress has conferred jurisdiction upon federal district courts, as limited by Article III, § 2. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 132. See also Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 697-99 (1992).

2

sources,” but she has failed to describe those sources, the amount received from each source

during the past twelve months, and the amount she expects to continue to receive. Plaintiff

declares that she has $1,130 from Social Security Disability in a checking or savings account and

does not own any real estate or other assets of value. Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that she is 

a licensed real estate sales person, a real estate broker, and “a small minority women’s business

owner and professional business woman.” (Compl. at 1.)

The court finds that plaintiff has failed to make an adequate showing of indigency. 

See Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995); Alexander v. Carson Adult High

Sch., 9 F.3d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application should

therefore be denied.

Plaintiff is advised that a federal pleading must contain “a short and plain

statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Federal courts are

presumed to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” 

Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch.

Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 (1986)). This is so because federal courts are courts of limited

jurisdiction and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by federal Constitution and statute. 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S.

131, 136-37 (1992).

1

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time during

the proceedings. See Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95

(9th Cir. 1996). The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting

jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.

/////

Case 2:07-cv-02646-FCD-DAD Document 3 Filed 01/02/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

The basic federal jurisdiction statutes are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, which

confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal jurisdiction may also

be conferred by federal statutes regulating specific subject matter. See generally W.W.

Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J. Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 2:5.

Here, plaintiff has sued the coach of the Sacramento Kings and a former

Sacramento Kings basketball player. Plaintiff has also sued Donna Mobley, Leonard Mobley,

Walter Mobley, Lena Mobley, Dontell Mobley, and Oda Mae Hubbard, all of whom appear to be

related to plaintiff. Plaintiff characterizes her action as one for personal injury. She seeks 1.5

million dollars in monetary damages for assault, libel, and slander. The allegations of plaintiff’s

complaint demonstrate that diversity jurisdiction is absent because all parties to the action are

citizens of California. Plaintiff’s claims of assault, libel, and slander do not arise under the

United States Constitution or any federal statute and therefore fail to present a federal question. 

Plaintiff has not met her burden of establishing any ground for this court’s jurisdiction. 

Because this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims, it

appears clear that granting leave to amend would be futile. See Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912

F.2d 291, 296-97 (9th Cir. 1990); Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738

(9th Cir. 1987). The undersigned will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed with

prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 10, 2007 application to proceed in forma pauperis be

denied; and

2. This action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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)(1). Within ten (10)

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

objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to

Case 2:07-cv-02646-FCD-DAD Document 3 Filed 01/02/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 2, 2008.

DAD:kw

Ddad1\orders.pro se\hubbard2646.f&r.jur

Case 2:07-cv-02646-FCD-DAD Document 3 Filed 01/02/08 Page 4 of 4