Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00856/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00856-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Frank Silva is proceeding pro se in this civil matter. Defendants are members of 

the Modesto Sheriff’s Department and what appears to be a bank manager. Plaintiff states that the 

basis for this Court’s jurisdiction is the presence of a federal question. 

It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Owen 

Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978); K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, 

653 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir. 2011). Limits upon federal jurisdiction must not be disregarded or 

evaded. Owen Equip., 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978); Jones v. Giles, 741 F.2d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 

1984). “It is presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of 

establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 

Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); K2 Am., 653 F.3d at 1027. Defects in subject matter 

jurisdiction may be raised at any time, either by the parties or sua sponte by the court. Nevada v. 

Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2012); Olson v. NBC, 855 F.2d 1446, 1453 (9th 

Cir. 1988). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court 

must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Washington Envtl. Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 

1131, 1138 (9th Cir. 2013).

FRANK SILVA,

Plaintiff

v.

ADAM CHRISTIANSON, et al.,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-0856 AWI SKO 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 

COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED AND THIS CASE CLOSED 

DUE TO A LACK OF SUBJECT 

MATTER JURISDICTION

Case 1:16-cv-00856-AWI-SKO Document 4 Filed 09/21/16 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

2

Courts have “federal question jurisdiction” over “all civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The presence or absence 

of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides 

that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” California v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 

2000). 

Here, under the “basis for jurisdiction” section of the Complaint,1Plaintiff has written: 

“Adam Christianson Sheriff’s Dept. won’t call me back left messages 2 time [sic]. Darlene R. 

Collier won’t do fraud on them writing checks, and on fraud on credit card with dish to einsurance 

companys [sic].” In other parts of the Complaint, Plaintiff indicates that Defendant Adam 

Christianson, who is the Sheriff of Stanislaus County, did not make any arrests in connection with 

Plaintiff’s report of a stolen pool sweep, and did not investigate a report of a missing family in 

Turlock, California. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant McDonald of the Sheriff’s Department 

was involved in small claims case against Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s house, that Jeffrey Reyes of the 

Sheriff’s Department sent a letter that Plaintiff’s house had a foreclosure date of 1-15-16 but there 

was never a foreclosure, Reyes and Macdonald will not return calls, and that Macdonald had 

Plaintiff’s house going to the title company with no pay out.

There is no federal question apparent from the face of the Complaint. No federal statutes 

are cited, no constitutional provisions are identified, and the Court cannot determine what wrongs 

the defendants committed, if any. It is unclear what Plaintiff is even attempting to allege that 

Defendants did to harm him. Therefore, the Complaint does not invoke federal question 

jurisdiction.2 

As stated above, if this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the case.

 

1 The Complaint is on a pre-printed form. See Doc. No. 1.

2

It is not clear whether Plaintiff is attempting to allege claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the general civil rights statute. 

In order state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must make factual allegations that shows both: (1) a 

deprivation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or federal statutory law, and (2) that the deprivation was 

committed by a person acting under color of state law. See Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006). 

The Court notes that a failure to investigate or the failure to conduct an adequate investigation, without more, does not 

violate the Constitution. See Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985); Mancini v. City of Cloverdale 

Police Dept., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96995, *11-*13 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2015) (and cases cited therein).

Case 1:16-cv-00856-AWI-SKO Document 4 Filed 09/21/16 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

3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Bellon, 732 F.3d at 1138. Before the Court dismisses the case, it will 

order Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed due to a lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. In his response to the order to show cause, Plaintiff must identify a 

basis for subject matter jurisdiction and include factual allegations that demonstrate plausible 

claims. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th 

Cir. 2011). If Plaintiff’s response is adequate, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend his 

complaint. If Plaintiff’s response is inadequate, or if Plaintiff does not timely respond to this 

order, the Complaint will be dismissed due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and this case 

will be closed.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is to show cause in writing, as discussed above, why this case should not be 

dismissed due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

2. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing on or before October 11, 2016;3and

3. The failure to timely respond will result in the dismissal of the complaint and the closure 

of this case without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 

3 The Court must be in actual receipt of the response on or by October 11, 2016.

Case 1:16-cv-00856-AWI-SKO Document 4 Filed 09/21/16 Page 3 of 3