Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02804/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02804-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DON MACALLISTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ 

RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-2804-DAD-CKD (PS)

ORDER

Plaintiff Don Macallister proceeds without counsel1 on a civil complaint seeking damages 

and injunctive relief against California Public Employees Retirement System (“CalPERS”).

Plaintiff requests to proceed in forma pauperis and makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915 in the renewed application. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff’s renewed application to proceed in forma 

pauperis is granted.

Plaintiff’s complaint is before the court for screening. (ECF No. 1.) The complaint must 

be dismissed because it fails to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. If plaintiff cannot 

establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, then this suit belongs in state court. Plaintiff is 

granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order.

1 Because plaintiff proceeds without counsel, this action is referred to the undersigned by Local 

Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 2:24-cv-02804-DAD-CKD Document 5 Filed 11/21/24 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

27

28

2

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 

proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 

claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 

immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 

(2000). In performing this screening, the court liberally construes a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings. 

See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987).

In addition, courts are required sua sponte to examine jurisdictional issues. Molski v. 

Arby's Huntington Beach, 359 F. Supp. 2d 938, 943 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (citing B.C. v. Plumas 

Unified School District, 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999).) Federal courts are courts of limited 

jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. Of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 

The presumption is against jurisdiction and “the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the 

party asserting jurisdiction.” Vacek v. U.S. Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(citing Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see Franklin v. 

State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) (court “may dismiss an 

action sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction”).

II. ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is the CEO of 5 Sec Recharging EVs Inc., and alleges that CalPERS failed to 

provide a fair evaluation of plaintiff’s breakthrough technology which has the potential to 

revolutionize the electric vehicle (EV) market by drastically reducing recharging times. (ECF No. 

1 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges CalPERS publicly committed to investing $10 billion in climate 

technology initiatives focused on private market innovations but failed to properly evaluate 

plaintiff’s company’s technology. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges CalPERS misrepresented plaintiff’s 

company as a pre-seed startup, blocked plaintiff’s company from obtaining the necessary funding 

to fulfill orders from key clients like the California Department of General Services, and withheld

full and accurate disclosure from its members, effectively depriving them of their right to choose 

between EV recharging systems. (Id. at 2-4.) CalPERS also failed to disclose its investment in a 

Case 2:24-cv-02804-DAD-CKD Document 5 Filed 11/21/24 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

27

28

3

competing EV company which constituted a conflict of interest that led to a biased and unfair 

evaluation. (Id. at 3-4.)

Plaintiff brings three causes of action as follows: Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud and 

Misrepresentation, and Arbitrary and Capricious Conduct. (ECF No. at 4-5.) Plaintiff seeks 

damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment. (Id. at 5.)

III. DISCUSSION

The complaint states the basis for the court’s jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343

because “the case involves federal law questions, including CalPERS’ violation of federal 

securities regulations.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) However, the complaint contains no further allegations 

about any violations of federal securities regulations and this single, conclusory allegation is 

insufficient to invoke the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

District 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. An action “arises under” 

federal law where a “well-pleaded 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. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28

(1983). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, jurisdiction exists “only when a federal question 

is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

A complaint purporting to rest on state law can be recharacterized as one “arising under” 

federal law if the law governing the complaint is exclusively federal, Vaden v. Discover Bank, 

556 U.S. 49, 61-62 (2009), or if “some substantial, disputed question of federal law is a necessary 

element” of the state law claims, Rains v. Criterion Systems, Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 345 (9th Cir. 

1996). Jurisdiction under such a theory, however, cannot be established where a plaintiff’s state 

law claims are based on violations of both federal and state law, because, under such 

circumstances, “federal law is not a necessary element of the claim.” Id. at 346; see also, e.g., 

Willy v. Coastal Corp., 855 F.2d 1160, 1169-71 (5th Cir. 1988) (complaint alleging wrongful 

Case 2:24-cv-02804-DAD-CKD Document 5 Filed 11/21/24 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

27

28

4

discharge was not removable where termination was based on plaintiff’s refusal to act in violation 

of federal and state laws).

Plaintiff alleges merely that his claims involve federal law questions. Thus, the 

complaint’s allegations do not establish that federal law is a necessary element of any claim or 

that a claim otherwise arises under federal law.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The complaint must be dismissed, but plaintiff is granted leave to amend to attempt to 

remedy the defects described above and establish the court’s jurisdiction over a federal claim. See

Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely clear that no 

amendment can cure the defect... a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s 

deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.”). In the alternative, 

plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal which will terminate this action by operation of 

law.

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s renewed request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is granted.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

with leave to amend.

3. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and the Local Rules of Practice; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance 

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

Dated: November 21, 2024

8, maca24cv2804.scrn

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-02804-DAD-CKD Document 5 Filed 11/21/24 Page 4 of 4