Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00373/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00373-0/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 DFL GGH PS

vs.

ACCESS SECUREPAK, INC.,

Defendant. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

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).

Although there are eight plaintiffs, only plaintiff Russell has 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). All eight plaintiffs will be

provided the opportunity to submit either the appropriate affidavits in support of a request to

proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate filing fee.

The determination whether plaintiffs may proceed in forma pauperis does not

complete the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to

Case 2:07-cv-00373-JAM-GGH Document 15 Filed 04/10/07 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

dismiss the case at any time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary

relief against an immune defendant. 

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 invoked federal law in support of their claims, and the amount in controversy does not 1

exceed $75,000. Although plaintiffs seek 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). 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.’ ” Id., quoting

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

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. 

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

Case 2:07-cv-00373-JAM-GGH Document 15 Filed 04/10/07 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

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. See H&D Tire and AutomotiveHardware, 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

the amount in controversy does not exceed the required jurisdictional amount. Plaintiffs have not

demonstrated why this case is not more appropriately filed in state court rather than federal court.

Good cause appearing, plaintiffs will be directed to show cause why this case

should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs shall submit, within twenty days from the date of this order, either

completed applications and affidavits in support of their requests to proceed in forma pauperis on

the forms provided by the Clerk of Court, or the appropriate filing fee; plaintiffs’ failure to

comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiffs new Applications to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:07-cv-00373-JAM-GGH Document 15 Filed 04/10/07 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

3. Within twenty days from the date of this order, plaintiffs shall show cause why

this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DATED: 4/10/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076/Russell373.osc.wpd

Case 2:07-cv-00373-JAM-GGH Document 15 Filed 04/10/07 Page 4 of 4