Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03407/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03407-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YOHANIA MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUBINA KHAN, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03407-YGR 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On July 30, 2015, the Court issued an Order Denying Plaintiff Yohania Martin’s 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing the Complaint Without Prejudice. 

(Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff was given until August 28, 2015 to file an amended complaint and a 

renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id. at 3.) 

Despite the filing of a largely unintelligible document entitled “Plaintiff Asking the Court 

of [sic] Consider Facts Poverty and Allow Complaint” (Dkt. No. 7) and a document entitled 

“Amended Complaint” (Dkt. No. 8), along with a renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and accompanying affidavit (Dkt. Nos. 9-10), the Court still cannot determine the 

essential elements of any cognizable federal claim (i.e., a legal theory upon which relief can be 

granted). Plaintiff appears to suggest that she did not pursue the matter in state court because she 

sought relief from a “higher court.” As previously indicated, federal courts are courts of limited 

jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 6 at 1-2.) Plaintiff has not identified any claim which would give rise to 

federal jurisdiction, nor does one appear feasible in light of the circumstances alleged. Neither 

does plaintiff present an alternative basis for federal jurisdiction. State law disputes between 

citizens of the same state—in this case, apparently California—are typically resolved by the state’s 

trial and appellate courts, not federal courts. Accordingly, the amended complaint is DISMISSED

on the same grounds as detailed in the Court’s July 30, 2015 Order (Dkt. No. 6) as to the initial 

Case 4:15-cv-03407-YGR Document 13 Filed 09/03/15 Page 1 of 2
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

complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 3, 2015

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-03407-YGR Document 13 Filed 09/03/15 Page 2 of 2