Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01214/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01214-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR L. HALL, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1214 MCE PAN (GGH) PS

vs.

WASHOE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA ORDER

& NEVADA, CHAIRMAN & COURT & 

CHIEF OF POLICE OF SAID TRIBE, 

Defendants.

 / 

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has 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(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at South Lake Tahoe Jail, has submitted a copy of

his May 8, 2006, trust account statement which shows a negative balance of $2.22. Plaintiff

avers he has no assets, no cash, no bank accounts, and no income; he last worked September

2005 at a Taco Bell for $7.00/hour, and last received a lump sum social service payment of

$400.00 in November 2005. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted.

Case 2:06-cv-01214-MCE -EFB Document 3 Filed 06/28/06 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

2

 The determination that plaintiff 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 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 must also comply with the general rules of pleading set

forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), which requires that complaints set forth (1) the grounds upon which

the court’s jurisdiction rests, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing entitlement to

relief; and (3) a demand for the relief plaintiff seeks. Additional general grounds for dismissing a

proposed complaint are improper form (Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)); lack of subject matter jurisdiction

(Rule 12(b)(1)); and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (Rule 12(b)(6)). 

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595-96 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defect, a pro se litigant proceeding

in forma pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend the complaint before

dismissal. . Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d

1221, 1230 (9th Cir. 1984). 

The complaint challenges the actions of tribal officials and the decisions of a

tribal court to remove plaintiff’s children from his custody and the custody of the children’s

mother, and place them in tribal foster care which plaintiff alleges is both inadequate and

abusive. 

The complaint does not establish this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. “A party

invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving the actual existence of subject

matter jurisdiction.” Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996). Tribal courts

have exclusive jurisdiction over child custody proceedings involving Indian children domiciled

on reservations. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 109 S. Ct.

1597 (1989); Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. § 1901-1963. Nontribal child custody

Case 2:06-cv-01214-MCE -EFB Document 3 Filed 06/28/06 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

matters lie within the jurisdiction of the state courts. In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-594, 10 S.

Ct. 850, 853 (1890); Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435, 99 S. Ct. 2371, 2383 (1979); Elk Grove

Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 12, 124 S. Ct. 2301, 2309 (2004). Child custody

decisions rendered within the exclusive jurisdiction of a tribal court may be challenged in a

“court of competent jurisdiction” only “upon a showing that such action violated any provision of

[25 U.S.C. ] sections 1911, 1912, and 1913. . . ” 25 U.S.C. § 1914.

A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only those

cases authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co,

511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. 

Statutes which regulate specific subject matter may also confer federal jurisdiction. See

generally, W.W. Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J. Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial

§ 2:5. 

Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating this court’s subject matter

jurisdiction, and the court is unable to discern such jurisdiction based on the current pleading.

Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed. 

The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. An amended

complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. E. D. Cal. L. R. 15-

220. The court’s jurisdiction, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be

sufficiently alleged in the amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

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

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed; and

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

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of federal law, the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket

Case 2:06-cv-01214-MCE -EFB Document 3 Filed 06/28/06 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

number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an

original and two copies of the amended complaint; 

4. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result

in a recommendation this action be dismissed .

DATED: 6/28/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOW6:HALL.ifp amd cmpt

Case 2:06-cv-01214-MCE -EFB Document 3 Filed 06/28/06 Page 4 of 4