Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02409/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02409-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331tt Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

– 1 – 15cv2409 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICKEY LAROY PHELPS, 

 Plaintiff, 

Case No. 15-cv-2409-BAS(RBB) 

ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF 

SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION v. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

 Defendant. 

Plaintiff Rickey LaRoy Phelps, proceeding pro se, filed a 3-page handwritten 

complaint arising from a past criminal proceeding and an encounter involving 

individuals named Bryanna F. and Tressor Ndandu. There is no identifiable request 

for relief in the complaint. In the civil cover sheet, Plaintiff describes the action as 

follows: “I had nothing to do with the [D]etroit case of Tresor and I never raped or 

touched Breana [sic] no DNA of mine found.” And it appears that Plaintiff has failed 

to properly effect service. 

As a pro se litigant, the Court construes Plaintiff’s complaint liberally. See 

Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (“In civil rights 

Case 3:15-cv-02409-BAS-RBB Document 16 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 4
 – 2 – 15cv2409 

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 

cases where the plaintiff appears pro se, the court must construe the pleading liberally 

and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt.”). “It is settled law that the 

allegations of [a pro se plaintiff’s] complaint, ‘however inartfully pleaded’ are held 

‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]’” See Haines 

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

 For the following reasons, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

the action in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

I. ANALYSIS 

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized 

by Constitution or a statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Id.

(internal citations omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited 

jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting 

jurisdiction.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also Abrego Abrego v. The Dow 

Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006). 

“Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires that 

no defendant have the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v. Communities 

for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam), abrogated on other 

grounds by Hertz Corp v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181 (2010). Alternatively, federal 

district courts also have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A plaintiff 

suing in federal court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the 

existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the 

court . . . on discovering the [defect], must dismiss the case, unless the defect be 

corrected by amendment.” Tosco, 236 F.3d at 499 (quoting Smith v. McCullough, 

270 U.S. 456, 459 (1926)). 

Although there has not been a request for dismissal, it is well-established that 

Case 3:15-cv-02409-BAS-RBB Document 16 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 4
 – 3 – 15cv2409 

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 

“a district court’s duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon 

the parties’ arguments.” See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 

360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004). Courts may consider the issue sua sponte. Demery 

v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1149 n.8 (9th Cir. 1984). Indeed, the Supreme Court 

has emphasized that “district courts have an ‘independent obligation to address 

subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 

541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (quoting United States v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 

2d 964, 972 (E.D. Cal. 2004)). 

The complaint itself does not specifically invoke any particular jurisdiction, 

including diversity and federal question. However, looking to the Civil Cover Sheet 

attached to the complaint, Plaintiff checked the box for “U.S. Government 

Defendant” under “basis of jurisdiction.” Upon reviewing the complaint, there is no 

mention of the United States Government as a party this action. Rather, the defendant 

in this action is identified as the People of the State of California. And though 

Plaintiff mentions a “racist trail” against him and “unconstitutional” statements 

argued by the district attorney, even liberally construing the complaint, without 

knowing the relief sought, the Court cannot determine that Plaintiff asserts a claim 

that arises from the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute. 

 Plaintiff also lacks diversity jurisdiction. There is no identifiable amount in 

controversy. Furthermore, Plaintiff indicates in the civil cover sheet that he is a 

citizen of California, and it is apparent that Defendant is also a citizen of California. 

“Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires that no 

defendant have the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco, 236 F.3d at 499. Given 

that both Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of California, Plaintiff also lacks 

diversity jurisdiction in this action. See id.

The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s proof of service is defective as it fails to 

comply with Rule 4(c), which states that “[a]ny person who is at least 18 years old 

and not a party may serve a summons and complaint,” and Rule 4(j)(2). Based on the 

Case 3:15-cv-02409-BAS-RBB Document 16 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 4
 – 4 – 15cv2409 

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 

last order mailed to Plaintiff being returned as undeliverable with no forwarding 

address, Plaintiff also fails to comply Civil Local Rule 83.11. If this action proceeds, 

it is important that Plaintiff complies with these rules. Failure to do so may result in 

sanctions under Civil Local 83.1, including dismissal of this action. 

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER 

 In light of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 21, 2016 

Case 3:15-cv-02409-BAS-RBB Document 16 Filed 06/21/16 Page 4 of 4