Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01686/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01686-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH HARRIS AND YOKO BILLUPS

(DECEASED),

Petitioners,

v.

SHARP HEALTHCARE, et. al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 15cv1686 JAH (JLB)

ORDER SUA SPONTE

DISMISSING PETITION;

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AND MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AS

MOOT

On July 30, 2015, Petitioner Harris, proceeding pro se1, filed the instant petition

along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for appointment of counsel. 

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United

States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. See 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a). A court may authorize the commencement of a suit without

prepayment of fees if the petitioner submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his

or her assets, showing that he or she is unable to pay the fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a petition filed by any

person seeking to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to

1

 Petitioner attempts to bring this action on behalf of a deceased party, Yoko Billups. However, Petitioner, a non-lawyer, does not proceed herein in a class action. His privilege to appear in propria persona is a “privilege ... personal to him. He has no

authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.” McShane v. U.S., 366 F.2d

286, 288 (9th Cir.1966), citing Russell v.United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir.1962).

15cv1686

Case 3:15-cv-01686-JAH-JLB Document 7 Filed 08/12/15 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

a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is “frivolous,

malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeking monetary

relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun

v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the Court reviewing a

petition filed pursuant to the in forma pauperis provisions of Section 1915 make and rule

on its own motion to dismiss before directing that the petition be served by the U.S.

Marshal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127.

Moreover, the federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. See Gould v. Mutual Life

Ins. Co. v. New York, 790 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir. 1986). As such, it cannot reach the

merits of any dispute until it confirms its own subject matter jurisdiction. Steel Co. v.

Citizens for a Better Environ., 118 S.Ct. 1003, 1012 (1998). Thus, even though this

matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for relief from a state court judgment,

this Court must address the issue of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction first. The

instant petition alleges diversity as the sole basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. See Doc.

No. 1-1. 

To establish diversity jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show: (1) complete diversity

among opposing parties; and (2) an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive

of interests and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The burden of proving jurisdictional facts

is on the party asserting jurisdiction. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298

U.S. 178, 182 (1936); Fenton v. Freedman, 748 F.2d 1358, 1359 n.1 (9th Cir. 1984). 

The diversity statute is strictly construed and any doubts are resolved against finding

jurisdiction. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 1983).

Petitioner alleges that he is a citizen of California. Petitioner also alleges that 

Defendants are incorporated in, or its principal place of business is located in, California. 

See Doc. No. 1-1. Thus, this Court’s review of the pleadings reveals that Petitioner has

not shown complete diversity among opposing parties. Therefore, the petition is

2 15cv1686

Case 3:15-cv-01686-JAH-JLB Document 7 Filed 08/12/15 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

DISMISSED without prejudice for want of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice;

2. Petitioners’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot; and

3. Petitioners’ motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot.

Dated: August 11, 2015

 

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

3 15cv1686

Case 3:15-cv-01686-JAH-JLB Document 7 Filed 08/12/15 Page 3 of 3