Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00706/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00706-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karima K. Ali
Plaintiff
Asura Insurance Services
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF 

TO FILL OUT A COMPLETED

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS APPLICATION OR PAY 

THE $400.00 FILING FEE IN FULL

(ECF No. 2)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil action. (ECF No. 1.) On May 20, 2016, 

Plaintiff submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 

however, she did not submit a completed form. (ECF No. 2.) Specifically, Plaintiff did not 

sign the form under penalty of perjury, as the form instructs. The Court is not able to consider 

the application until the form is completed. Local Rule 131(b). Therefore, if Plaintiff wishes 

to proceed in forma pauperis, she shall file a completed application no later than June 30, 

2016. In the alternative, Plaintiff may pay the $400.00 filing fee by that same date.

In determining whether to file a completed form or pay the filing fee, the Court advises 

Plaintiff that a cursory review of the Complaint suggests that this Court may not have 

jurisdiction over her case. (ECF No. 1) Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and 

lack inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those 

Case 1:16-cv-00706-AWI-EPG Document 3 Filed 05/31/16 Page 1 of 3
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

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 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. The federal statutes 

cited by the Plaintiff likewise do not appear to provide an actionable claim. 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”).

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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a) (emphasis added); 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, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S.Ct. 1181 (2010). “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)).

Case 1:16-cv-00706-AWI-EPG Document 3 Filed 05/31/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiff is citizen of California and it appears that Defendant is a California 

corporation. Since both parties are citizens of California, it appears that diversity jurisdiction 

does not exist at this stage the proceeding.

Plaintiff is advised that the Court is not making a formal ruling regarding whether 

jurisdiction is proper. Instead, it is providing this information to Plaintiff to assist in her

decision on whether to pay the filing fee in this action. Plaintiff is also advised that if she 

wishes to pursue his case, the Court will formally screen Plaintiff‟s case and allow her the 

opportunity to amend the pleading if the Court determines the pleading is deficient.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

The Clerk shall attach an application to proceed in forma pauperis to this Order. No 

later than June 30, 2016, Plaintiff shall submit the attached application fully completed and 

signed, or in the alternative, pay the $400.00 filing fee. Finally, if Plaintiff decides she no 

longer wishes to pursue this action, she shall file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by June 30, 

2016.

No requests for extension will be granted without a showing of good cause. Failure to 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00706-AWI-EPG Document 3 Filed 05/31/16 Page 3 of 3