Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04206/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04206-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RIGOBERTO JOSE MORENO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC AUKEE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-04206-EMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO RELEASE FUNDS

Docket No. 7

Plaintiff Rigoberto Jose Moreno, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit against a long list of 

defendants. Docket No. 1. On July 31, 2019, the Court granted his request to proceed in forma 

pauperis. Docket No. 4. However, the Court dismissed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 

because it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. Mr. Moreno was given 

leave to file an amended complaint no later than August 30, 2019. Id. Mr. Moreno has now filed 

a Motion to Release Funds for Order Authorizing Distribution of Funds Held in Court by the 

Department of Justice. Docket No. 7. 

I. DISCUSSION

Federal district courts have an affirmative duty to ensure that they have subject matter 

jurisdiction over the cases that come before them. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141

(2012) (“When a requirement goes to subject-matter jurisdiction, courts are obligated to consider 

sua sponte issues that the parties have disclaimed or have not presented.” (citing United States v. 

Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002))). Because the Court previously found that Mr. Moreno’s 

original complaint failed to state a claim and because no amended complaint has yet been filed, 

the Court cannot presently ascertain whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Moreno’s 

case. It is possible that the Court will have subject matter jurisdiction; thus, when he files his 

Case 3:19-cv-04206-EMC Document 15 Filed 08/23/19 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

amended complaint, Mr. Moreno is directed to ensure compliance with Civil Local Rule 3–5, 

which requires that each complaint “identify the statutory or other basis for federal jurisdiction and 

the facts supporting such jurisdiction.” Civ. Loc. R. 3–5. Mr. Moreno is also reminded to comply 

with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pursuant to which all complaints filed in 

federal court must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief” and “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

In addition, no Defendants have yet been served in this case. Nor were any Defendants 

given notice of this motion. Civil Local Rule 7–2 requires that all motions “must be filed, served 

and noticed in writing on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge.” Civ. Loc. R. 7–2. Because 

Defendants in this matter have not been given notice of either the case itself or the instant motion, 

they have not had an opportunity to be heard on the issues, and the Court finds it improper to 

consider Plaintiff’s Motion to Release Funds at this time. As a result, the Motion to Release 

Funds is DENIED, and Plaintiff is permitted to refile the motion once an amended complaint has 

been filed and Defendants have been served. The motion should more clearly state what the 

Funds in question are, who holds them, and what the basis of Plaintiff’s claim for those funds is.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Mr. Moreno’s Motion to Release Funds for 

Order Authorizing Distribution of Funds Held in Court by the Department of Justice. Mr. Moreno 

is reminded to file an amended complaint no later than August 30, 2019; that complaint must 

contain a short and plain statement of each claim for relief he wishes to assert, and it must identify 

the provisions of law and the set of facts that support each claim. Furthermore, the complaint 

should explain the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the claims asserted by Plaintiff. Should Mr. 

Moreno again fail to comply with Rule 8 and Civil Local Rule 3–5, he risks dismissal with 

prejudice. Mr. Moreno is forewarned that failure to file an amended complaint by the August 30, 

2019 deadline will lead to the dismissal of his case.

Once again, Mr. Moreno is encouraged to seek the free information that is available to pro 

se litigants from the Legal Help Desk. Help Desks are located at the San Francisco and Oakland 

Courthouses and assistance is available by appointment. The San Francisco Help Desk is located 

Case 3:19-cv-04206-EMC Document 15 Filed 08/23/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

at 450 Golden Gate Ave., 15th Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, CA 94102. The Oakland Help

Desk is located at 1301 Clay Street, 4th Floor, Room 470S,Oakland, CA 94612. Appointments 

can be made by calling (415) 782-8982. See also http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. A free 

handbook for pro se litigants, entitled Representing Yourself in Federal Court: A Handbook for 

Pro Se Litigants, is also available free of charge for download at

https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook.

This order disposes of Docket No. 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-04206-EMC Document 15 Filed 08/23/19 Page 3 of 3