Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00511/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00511-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shonda E. Brown
Plaintiff
KRC Management
Defendant
Michael Kirby
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

SHONDA E. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KRC MANAGEMENT, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:16-cv-00511-AWI-BAM 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND 

CLOSING CASE

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

(Doc. 2)

ORDER

Plaintiff Shonda E. Brown (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this action on April 

11, 2016. Plaintiff alleges that she is being wrongfully evicted from her housing complex. (Doc. 

1). Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

April 1st 2016 I was sitting with a few friends in the Circle of the Complex when 

the Manger/Maintence man approach Me bout having achol when it was in My 

personal cup saying that was the 2nd time he confronted Me about it which it 

wasn’t it was My first Verbal Warning which I comply. Was Very Respectful and 

Said OK. He did state that He doesn’t Want to see the bottle/can that it was in. 

Which is fine I Never drink out a bottle or can but a personal cup was okay. He 

stated that a few months back the Landlord was with him and I was outside 

drinking with other tenants and the Landlord said to give us all 90 Day notices to 

Case 1:16-cv-00511-AWI-BAM Document 3 Filed 04/18/16 Page 1 of 4
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

vacate He thought that was a little Extreme For the curcumstances. He never did 

mention this to me or anyone else at that matter so I was unaware of what was 

going on until I received a 90 Day notice on 4/6/16 Dated 4/5/16 to Vacate on 

7/5/16 which on the letter Typed up but doesn’t not say why to vacate. When I 

asked (Mike) Micheal Kirby Community Manger he said because of 2 warnings of 

drinking when he only told Me Once and that was on 4-1-16 which again I had it 

in a personal cup. 

(Doc. 1 at 5-6) (unedited text). Plaintiff names KRC Management and Micheal Kirby as 

defendants. 

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

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

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

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

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). To proceed in federal court, Plaintiffs complaint must establish the 

existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See id. Federal courts are presumptively without 

jurisdiction over civil actions, and the burden to establish the contrary rests upon the party 

asserting jurisdiction. See id. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be 

raised by the court sua sponte. Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1035-36 (9t h Cir. 2013). “If the 

court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the 

action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (emphasis added); see also Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team 

Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 2014). 

1. Diversity Jurisdiction

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil 

actions “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(a)(1). 

Here, Plaintiff has not shown that the parties are completely diverse. The complaint 

indicates that both Plaintiff and Defendant Michael Kirby are citizens of California. (Doc. 1 at 

2). If the parties are California citizens, this destroys the requisite “complete diversity.” See

Cook v. AVI Casino Enterprises, Inc., 548 F.3d 718, 722 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff also has not 

Case 1:16-cv-00511-AWI-BAM Document 3 Filed 04/18/16 Page 2 of 4
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

shown that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. Liberally construed, 

Plaintiff is requesting injunctive relief to prevent her eviction. 

Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. Given the 

lack of diverse citizenship and the absence of an amount in controversy, it is clear that Plaintiff 

cannot amend her complaint to sufficiently plead diversity jurisdiction. 

2. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have jurisdiction over “all civil 

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “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, Plaintiff’s action is for an allegedly wrongful eviction, which is a matter of

landlord-tenant law. Landlord-tenant disputes are matters of state law and cannot be the basis for 

federal question jurisdiction.

1

 See Round Valley Indian Hous. Auth. v. Hunter, 907 F.Supp. 

1343, 1348 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 

Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on the presence of a 

federal question. Given the state law basis of her action, it is evident that Plaintiff cannot amend 

her complaint to sufficiently plead federal question jurisdiction. 

 

1

Plaintiff’s complaint may also be attempting to allege a breach of contract. However, a breach 

of contract claim would arise under state law, and would provide no basis for federal question 

jurisdiction. See Opera Plaza Residential Parcel Homeowners Ass’n v. Hoang, 376 F.3d 831, 

840 (9th Cir. 2004).

Case 1:16-cv-00511-AWI-BAM Document 3 Filed 04/18/16 Page 3 of 4
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

Request to Proceed without Payment of Fees

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a). As this is not a case over which the district court has subject matter jurisdiction, 

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court concludes that this action must be 

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Because the 

deficiencies in Plaintiff’s complaint are incurable, leave to amend would be futile and will be 

denied. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED; 

2. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction; and

3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00511-AWI-BAM Document 3 Filed 04/18/16 Page 4 of 4