Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00373/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00373-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

RONALD RUSSELL, II, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-07-0373 RRB GGH PS

vs.

ACCESS SECUREPAK, INC.,

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiffs are state prisoners proceeding pro se. Plaintiffs seek relief pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and have requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

On April 10, 2007, this court noted that of the eight plaintiffs, only plaintiff

Russell had submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and his application is

incomplete in lacking certification by a prison official. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). The

court also noted that there appeared to be no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. 

Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to cure these defects by submitting completed requests to

proceed in forma pauperis, and by showing cause why this action should not be dismissed for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Case 2:07-cv-00373-JAM-GGH Document 19 Filed 11/20/07 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

 If subject matter jurisdiction is based on the existence of a federal question, plaintiffs 1

must show that they have alleged a claim for relief arising under federal law and that the claim is

not frivolous.

2

On April 30, 2007, plaintiff Bradley submitted a completed application to proceed

in forma pauperis. No other plaintiffs have submitted complete applications. None of the

plaintiffs have shown cause why this action should not be dismissed.

As set forth in this court’s previous order, the complaint alleges that eight inmates

purchased seven inch LCD televisions from defendant by mail order, at a cost of approximately

$164.90 per inmate. Plaintiffs claim that defendant sold these televisions based on false and

misleading advertising in that they did not contain UL approved power adapters which are

necessary at Avenal State Prison, and defendant would not refund plaintiffs’ purchase price. 

Plaintiffs allege jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1332 (federal question and

diversity jurisdiction). However, plaintiffs have not specified the federal law in support of their

claims, and the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. Although plaintiffs seek 1

punitive damages in the amount of $250,000 per plaintiff, they seek no compensatory damages. 

In determining the jurisdictional amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction,

both compensatory and punitive damages must be considered to the extent they are recoverable

and to the extent claimed. Anthony v. Security Pacific Financial Services, Inc., 75 F.3d 311, 315

(7th Cir. 1996). See generally Matheson v. Progressive Speciality Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089 (9th

Cir. 2003). When punitive damages are needed in order to satisfy the amount in controversy

requirement, it must be determined whether they are in fact recoverable as a matter of state law. 

If so, there is diversity jurisdiction unless “it is clear ‘beyond a legal certainty that the plaintiff

would under no circumstances be entitled to recover the jurisdictional amount.’ ” Anthony at

315, quoting Cadek v. Great Lakes Dragaway, Inc., 58 F.3d 1209, 1212 (7 Cir. 1995). “When a th

claim for punitive damages makes up the bulk of the amount in controversy, and may even have

been colorably asserted solely to confer jurisdiction, we should scrutinize that claim closely.” Id. 

Case 2:07-cv-00373-JAM-GGH Document 19 Filed 11/20/07 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

“[W]hen several plaintiffs assert separate and distinct demands in a single suit, the amount

involved in each separate controversy must be of the requisite amount to be within the

jurisdiction of the district court, and that those amounts cannot be added together to satisfy

jurisdictional requirements.” Id. (citations omitted).

Here, each plaintiff would have to recover more than $75,000 in punitive damages

in order to exceed the statutory requirement. Plaintiffs have not alleged that California law

provides for punitive damages in this case. Nor does it appear that plaintiffs would be entitled to

recover an amount even close to the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement. Plaintiffs have not

alleged conduct by defendants which would support a punitive damages award that is

approximately 1,500 times the amount of actual damages (assuming compensatory damages

total) of $164.90). See H&D Tire and Automotive-Hardware, Inc. v. Pitney, 227 F.3d 326, 329

(5 Cir. 2000). th

Plaintiffs have therefore failed to allege the jurisdictional basis for bringing this

case in federal court. The claim asserted by plaintiffs does not involve a federal question, and if

diversity of citizenship is the basis of jurisdiction the amount in controversy does not exceed the

required jurisdictional amount. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 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 Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiffs may file

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiffs are advised that failure to file objections

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:07-cv-00373-JAM-GGH Document 19 Filed 11/20/07 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

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

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

DATED: 11/19/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076/Russell373.fr.wpd

Case 2:07-cv-00373-JAM-GGH Document 19 Filed 11/20/07 Page 4 of 4