Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-03639/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-03639-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS HEATON SPITTERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PSYNERGY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-03639-SK 

REFERRAL FOR REASSIGNMENT 

AND REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

Regarding Docket Nos. 1, 2

Plaintiff Thomas Heaton Spitter (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action on June 

18, 2018. Neither party has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c), and, therefore, the Court does not have authority to make a dispositive ruling in this case. 

Accordingly, the Court orders that this case be REASSIGNED to a United States district judge for 

all further proceedings, including action on the recommendations of this Report and 

Recommendation. 

Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a Complaint. The 

Court may authorize a plaintiff to file an action in federal court without prepayment of fees or 

security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to pay such fees or 

give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that 

he is unable to pay the filing fee and, thus, GRANTS his application for IFP. However, the in 

forma pauperis statute provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if, inter alia, the Complaint is 

frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). Moreover, federal courts are under a duty to raise and decide issues of subject 

matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time it appears subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12; Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). If the Court 

determines that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court must dismiss the case. Id.; Fed. R. 

Case 4:18-cv-03639-PJH Document 4 Filed 07/19/18 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

Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 

Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts can only adjudicate cases which the 

Constitution or Congress authorize them to adjudicate: those cases involving diversity of 

citizenship (where the parties are from diverse states), or a federal question, or those cases to 

which the United States is a party. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of 

America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil 

cases and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. at 

377. 

Plaintiff fails to provide any facts to support jurisdiction here. First, Plaintiff does not 

allege any facts to establish diversity jurisdiction. For diversity jurisdiction, the parties must be 

citizens of different states and the amount in controversy must exceed $75, 000. Plaintiff does not 

state where Defendants reside. Thus, it is not clear whether complete diversity exists. Moreover, 

Plaintiff does not allege any facts to show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Second, Plaintiff does not allege any facts to show federal question jurisdiction. “The 

presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint 

rule.’” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 382, 392 (1987). The well-pleaded complaint rule 

recognizes that the plaintiff is the master of his or her claim. “[H]e or she may avoid federal 

jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Id. Thus, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, 

federal-question jurisdiction arises where the “complaint establishes either that federal law creates 

the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a 

substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). 

Plaintiff does not refer to federal law, and Plaintiff does not name the United States as a 

party. It is not clear at all from the Complaint what claim or claims Plaintiff seeks to assert. 

Plaintiff thus does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires “a short 

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, . . . and a demand for 

judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that this case be REASSIGNED to a District Judge. The 

Case 4:18-cv-03639-PJH Document 4 Filed 07/19/18 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

Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS this action for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. However, because the Court cannot say there is no legal theory upon which 

Plaintiff could assert claim that provides a basis for federal jurisdiction, it FURTHER 

RECOMMENDS providing Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint that sets 

forth a viable basis for federal jurisdiction. If Plaintiff wishes to file an objection to these 

recommendations, he may do so within fourteen days of being served with a copy of this 

Report.

The Court HEREBY ADVISES Plaintiff that a Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which is 

available through the Court’s website or in the Clerk’s office, contains helpful information about 

proceeding without an attorney. The Court also advises Plaintiffs that they also may wish to seek 

assistance from the Legal Help Center. Plaintiffs may call the Legal Help Center at 415-782-

9000, extension 8657, or sign up on the 15th Floor of the Courthouse, Room 2796, for a free 

appointment with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help, but not legal 

representation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2019

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cv-03639-PJH Document 4 Filed 07/19/18 Page 3 of 3