Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01715/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01715-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
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

SHIRLY A. PEACEMAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONICA MITCHELL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:21-cv-1715-DC-JDP (PS)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I previously granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and screened her

original complaint. ECF No. 5. I notified plaintiff that the complaint failed to establish a basis 

for the court’s jurisdiction and granted her thirty days to file an amended complaint. Id. Plaintiff 

subsequently filed an amended complaint and paid the filing fee. ECF No. 6. 

On November 7, 2024, I ordered plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be 

dismissed sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 22; see Arbaugh v. Y&H 

Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (holding that courts “have an independent obligation to 

determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any 

party”); Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974) (“It has 

long been held that a judge can dismiss sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction.”). As observed in that 

order, plaintiff’s amended complaint makes only vague references to the Sixth and Thirteenth 

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which is insufficient to invoke federal question 

Case 2:21-cv-01715-DC-JDP Document 24 Filed 12/13/24 Page 1 of 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

2

jurisdiction.1 ECF No. 22 at 3; see ECF No. 6 at 4; Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 

392 (1987) (“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘wellpleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal 

question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”); Easton v. 

Crossland Mortgage Corp., 114 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that “the mere reference 

of a federal statute in a pleading will not convert a state law claim into a federal cause of action if 

the federal statute” is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction”) (per curiam).

Plaintiff has filed a response to the November 7, 2024 order to show cause; this response

fails to establish a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. As with the amended complaint, 

plaintiff’s response vaguely references the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, 

and various section of the U.S. Code. As plaintiff was previously notified, mere reference to the 

Constitution or to federal statutes is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction. See

Easton, 114 F.3d at 982. I find that plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated that subject matter 

jurisdiction exists over this action. I therefore recommend that plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. See Tijerino v. Stetson Desert 

Project, LLC, 934 F.3d 968, 971 n.2 (9th Cir. 2019) (observing that “in general, dismissal for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice”). Given the jurisdictional defect and 

plaintiff’s repeated failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction, I recommend that dismissal be 

without leave to amend. Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir. 

2009) (holding that a district court may deny leave to amend due to “repeated failure to cure 

deficiencies”).

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

1 The amended complaint indicates that all parties are citizens of California. ECF No. 6 at 

2-3. Diversity jurisdiction thus appears to be absent. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan 

American World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Case 2:21-cv-01715-DC-JDP Document 24 Filed 12/13/24 Page 2 of 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

3

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01715-DC-JDP Document 24 Filed 12/13/24 Page 3 of 3