Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04119/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04119-1/pdf.json

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

---

Case No. 16-cv-04119 NC 

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

MELINA RAZAVI,

Plaintiff,

v.

LUCKY SUPERMARKET 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04119 NC

 

ORDER REQUESTING 

REASSIGNMENT; RECOMMENDING 

DISMISSAL UNDER § 1915 REVIEW

Re: Dkt. No. 5

Plaintiff Melina Razavi has filed a letter with the Court alleging that she was struck 

by a Lucky Store employee on December 6, 2012, with a red store shopping basket. Dkt. 

No. 1. She has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 2. On 

July 25, 2016, the Court ordered Razavi to show cause why this case should not be 

dismissed following § 1915 review because her letter did not allege federal subject matter 

jurisdiction or comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Dkt. No. 5. The Court

gave Razavi until August 8, 2016 to respond to the Order to Show Cause; otherwise, the 

Court would dismiss the case. Id. Razavi has failed to respond. Accordingly, I 

recommend that the district court judge dismiss this case following § 1915 review.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “any court of the United States may authorize the 

commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a 

person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement . . . that the person is unable to 

pay such fees or give security therefor.” A district court must dismiss the complaint of an 

Case 5:16-cv-04119-EJD Document 6 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 16-cv-04119 NC 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

in forma pauperis (IFP) applicant if it determines that the complaint is frivolous or fails to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). “Dismissals on these grounds are often made sua 

sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the 

inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 

319, 324 (1989).

Here, Razavi has shown in her IFP application that she is unable to pay the filing 

fee required to file a complaint in federal district court. Dkt. No. 2. However, upon 

review of her allegations, the Court finds that, liberally construed, her complaint does not 

pass § 1915 review and should be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a complaint must contain: (1) a short and

plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction; (2) a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief 

sought. Razavi’s letter does not allege diversity of citizenship or a federal cause of action 

and does not satisfy the rules of pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). 

Razavi has not consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). Because I lack jurisdictional authority, the clerk must reassign this case to a 

district court judge. I recommend that the district court judge dismiss the case under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Any party may object to this recommendation, but must do so

within 14 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04119-EJD Document 6 Filed 08/12/16 Page 2 of 2