Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01562/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01562-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNDY EDWARDS, No. 2:15-cv-1562-KJM-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDING S AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GREGORY J. HAGWOOD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the court is

plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court is also required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these screening

provisions, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B) and

1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), this court

1

Case 2:15-cv-01562-KJM-CMK Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 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

must dismiss an action if the court determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Because

plaintiff, who is not a prisoner, has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court

will screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to Rule 12(h), the court will also

consider as a threshold matter whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction. 

I. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff brings this action against Gregory Hagwood, the Sheriff of Plumas

County, the County of Plumas, and two individuals who are both residence of Plumas County. 

Plaintiff states this action sounds in libel and slander. Plaintiff alleges defendant Hagwood made

false statements about her, which defendants Hentschel and Reynolds republished. She

specifically alleges the defendants have violated her rights under California Civil Code Sections

44, 45(a), and 46. 

II. DISCUSSION

In order for this case to proceed, this court must have subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. This court only has jurisdiction to adjudicate

those cases which involve either diversity of citizenship (citizens of different states) or a federal

question (such as a constitutional claim). See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511

U.S. 375, 380-81 (1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1330 et seq. The burden of establishing federal

jurisdiction lies on the party asserting such jurisdiction. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; see also

Miguel v. Country Funding Corp., 309 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Here, plaintiff claims she is proceeding on a federal question pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331. General federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 exists only “when

the plaintiff sues under a federal statute that creates a right of action in federal court.” Williams

v. United Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019, 1022 (9th Cir. 2007). However, plaintiff only cites to

state law and state cases in her complaint. There is no indication that this case arises under any

federal question. Neither does it appear that this court would have diversity jurisdiction as there

is no diversity of citizenship. 

2

Case 2:15-cv-01562-KJM-CMK Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 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

IV. CONCLUSION

As plaintiff fails to raise any federal question in this action, this court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s claims. This action should be dismissed without

prejudice to what ever remedies she may have in the state courts. 

It does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be cured by

amending the complaint, so plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the

entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed

for lack of 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)(l). Within 14 days

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

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

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

DATED: April 25, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:15-cv-01562-KJM-CMK Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 3 of 3