Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00706/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00706-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 42:4053 Breach of Insurance Contract

---

1

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

KARIMA K. ALI,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

ASURA INSURANCE SERVICES,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-000706-AWI-EPG

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) 

DAYS

(ECF No. 1)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Karima K. Ali (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se, filed a Complaint on May 20, 

2016. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges a breach of contract by Asura Insurance Services. 

Id. Plaintiff alleges that she “originally filed this complaint in the Superior Court of Fresno” 

and is filing the current complaint to “try[ ] to mov[e] the process forward” because Fresno 

County Superior Court has not made sufficient progress in bringing her case to resolution. 

Plaintiff also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. The Court has screened the 

Complaint and Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and makes its recommendations herein, 

namely, that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied and the Complaint be dismissed.

Case 1:16-cv-00706-AWI-EPG Document 5 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 6
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

II. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

As a general rule, all parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district 

court must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, the Court may authorize the 

commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees and costs of security therefor, by a 

person who submits an affidavit that . . . the person is unable to pay such fees or give security 

therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Therefore, an action may proceed despite a failure to 

prepay the filing fee only if leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted by the Court. See 

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).

The Ninth Circuit has held that “permission to proceed in forma pauperis is itself a 

matter of privilege and not right; denial of in forma pauperis status does not violate the 

applicant’s right to due process.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984). 

The Court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

O’Laughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990) (a “district court may deny leave to 

proceed [in forma pauperis] at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint 

that the action is frivolous or without merit.”). Because, as explained below, Plaintiff’s 

Complaint is frivolous and without merit, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is 

denied.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct a review of a pro se complaint to 

determine whether it “state[s] a claim on which relief may be granted,” is “frivolous or 

malicious,” or “seek[s] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” If 

the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, it must be dismissed. Id. Leave to

amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by 

amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Case 1:16-cv-00706-AWI-EPG Document 5 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 6
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

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must 

set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its 

face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 678.

In determining whether a complaint states an actionable claim, the Court must accept 

the allegations in the complaint as true, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 

738, 740 (1976), construe pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, 

Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s 

favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be 

held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 

F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally 

construed after Iqbal).

IV. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff alleges that she initially filed this Complaint in Fresno County Superior Court 

on April 3, 2012 and that the case is currently pending in that court.1 She alleges that she 

entered into a contract with Defendant to market health care plans but was apparently not paid 

commissions that she believes she was entitled to receive. Based on this conduct, she asserts

causes of action for fraud, breach of contract, conversion, negligence, “fraud and deceit by 

intentional conversion,” violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, “loss 

of opportunity,” and defamation. 

V. DISCUSSION

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject 

matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases which the United States 

Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 

511 U.S. 375 (1994). To proceed in federal court, a plaintiff’s pleading must establish the 

 

1 The docket for Plaintiff’s Fresno County Superior Court case indicates that Defendant recently filed a motion to 

initiate contempt proceedings and request sanctions against Plaintiff. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed the current 

Complaint and asked the state court to stay its proceedings until the federal case is resolved. 

Case 1:16-cv-00706-AWI-EPG Document 5 Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 of 6
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

existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Generally, there are two potential bases for federal 

subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction, or (2) diversity jurisdiction.

Plaintiff is advised that “a case ‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law 

creates the cause of action or ‘where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily 

turn[s] on some construction of federal law.’” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 

F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002), quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers 

Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983). The presence or absence of federal question 

jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 

482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal jurisdiction exists 

only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded 

complaint.” Id. 

Here, the complaint does not appear contain any allegation of a violation arising under 

the Constitution, federal law, or treaties of the United States. Plaintiff cites to 41 U.S.C. § 6503 

and 25 U.S.C. § 3116 in the introduction to her Complaint, but neither appears to apply to 

Plaintiff’s claims. The first applies only to contracts “made by an agency of United States for 

the manufacture or furnishing of materials, supplies, articles, or equipment.” 41 U.S.C. § 6502; 

United States v. W.H. Kistler Stationery Co., 200 F.2d 805, 806 (10th Cir. 1952) (cause of 

action under Title 41 of the United States Code “belong[s] to the government alone”); U.S. v. 

Lovknit Mfg. Co., 189 F.2d 454, 457 (5th Cir. 1951) (“no one may sue for a breach of these 

contracts in any respect except the United States through the Attorney General.”). Similarly, 

the second refers only to contracts entered into by the government for “forest land management 

activities on Indian forest land.” 25 U.S.C. §§ 3104(b), 3116(a). There is thus no basis for 

federal question jurisdiction in any of Plaintiff’s claims.

Alternatively, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have original jurisdiction 

over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value 

of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

“Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires that no defendant have 

the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env't, 236 F.3d 

495, 499 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam), abrogated on other grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 

Case 1:16-cv-00706-AWI-EPG Document 5 Filed 06/24/16 Page 4 of 6
5

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

559 U.S. 77, 130 S.Ct. 1181 (2010), citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “A plaintiff suing in federal 

court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is 

essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court . . . on discovering the 

[defect], must dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.” Id., quoting

Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456 (1926).

Plaintiff is citizen of California and Defendant is a California corporation. (Complaint 

at 2 (“Asurea Insurance Services is a California Corporation and conduct Business [sic] in the 

city of Sacramento.”), ECF No. 1.) Both parties are citizens of California and diversity 

jurisdiction thus does not exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (“a corporation shall be deemed to be a 

citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or 

foreign state where it has its principal place of business.”)

Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is appropriate where any 

opportunity to amend the complaint would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (“a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the 

pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the 

allegation of other facts.”). Remedial amendments would require Plaintiff to plead new facts 

that are completely contradictory to the facts the Complaint already alleges. Dismissal without 

leave to amend is thus appropriate. 

VI. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the Complaint fails to state a claim 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Application to 

Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED and the Complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT 

LEAVE TO AMEND. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code 

section 636(b)(1). Within fifteen (15) days after being served with these findings and 

recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should 

be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties 

Case 1:16-cv-00706-AWI-EPG Document 5 Filed 06/24/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal 

the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00706-AWI-EPG Document 5 Filed 06/24/16 Page 6 of 6