Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05489/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05489-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antero Resources Corporation
Respondent
Joseph B. Gaskins
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH B. GASKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-05489-JST (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

On December 16, 2014, plaintiff Joseph Gaskins, who is incarcerated at Salinas Valley 

State Prison, filed a document captioned as a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his 

pleading, however, Gaskins alleges he is being deprived of his rightful portion of the estate of his 

deceased father. Gaskins does not challenge his conviction or sentence. 

BACKGROUND

Gaskins' complaint is difficult to understand, but appears to concern problems he is having

collecting money from Antero Resources Corporation, which is leasing property belonging to the 

estate of Gaskins' deceased father. Gaskins claims he is entitled to monthly payments as well as a 

fifteen percent royalty on all gas and oil extracted from the property. Gaskins further claims that 

Antero Resources Corporation stopped distributing his portion of the estate after October 23, 

2013.

DISCUSSION

A petition for writ of habeas corpus is used to challenge the fact or duration of a prisoner's 

confinement. Prieser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Because Gaskins does not 

challenge his conviction or sentence, this action may not proceed as a habeas petition.

Nor does it appear that there is any federal question jurisdiction over this case. Although 

Case 3:14-cv-05489-JST Document 11 Filed 02/02/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

there are many statutes that confer federal jurisdiction, the principal ones are 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 

federal question jurisdiction, and 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff's complaint 

presents no allegations which would support this Court's subject matter jurisdiction under either 

statute, or any other. He does not allege that his claims arise under "the Constitution, laws, or 

treaties of the United States," (i.e., are based on a federal statute, treaty, or constitutional 

provision). 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Gaskins may be able to allege diversity jurisdiction. The district court has original 

jurisdiction over a civil action where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is 

between citizens of different States. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Gaskins alleges that he resides in 

California and that defendant Antero Resources Corporation is based in West Virginia. He does 

not, however, specify what he seeks in monetary damages. Because the facts as alleged do not 

imply a basis for federal court jurisdiction, the complaint will be dismissed. Gaskins will be 

granted leave to file an amended complaint using his own pleading form (i.e., not a form habeas 

petition), if he can establish diversity jurisdiction.

Gaskins is informed that to establish diversity jurisdiction, he must allege that he and 

Antero Resources Corporation are citizens of different states and that he seeks monetary damages 

in the amount of $75,000 or more. If diversity jurisdiction does not exist, Gaskins should not file 

a complaint in this court. He may, however, have a claim under state probate law or other state 

law, which may be brought in state court. Gaskins is further advised that the filing fee for a civil 

complaint in this court is $400.00 as opposed to the $5.00 filing fee for a habeas action.1 The 

Court will rule on his in forma pauperis ("IFP") application when he files an amended complaint.

Gaskins is further informed that the general rule is that only the personal representative of 

an estate may bring suit on behalf of the estate. See e.g., Cal. Probate Code § 9820. Gaskins 

should therefore also allege the authority under which he has standing to bring this action.

Finally, the Court notes that on January 20, 2015, Gaskins sent the Court a complaint using 

the Court's form for civil rights complaints brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint 

 

1

This includes a $50.00 administrative fee, which is waived for litigants proceeding IFP. Thus, 

the total filing fee for litigants granted leave to proceed IFP is $350.00.

Case 3:14-cv-05489-JST Document 11 Filed 02/02/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

includes the same allegations made in the form habeas petition and bears the same case number. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 "provides a cause of action for the 'deprivation of any rights, privileges, or 

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States." Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. 

Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). As noted above, this action does not 

allege claims arising under federal law and, therefore, cannot proceed as a Section 1983 

complaint. The form complaint will be returned to Gaskins. He may, however, use the allegations 

therein if and when he prepares an amended complaint alleging diversity jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the action is dismissed with leave to amend, as indicated above, 

within thirty (30) days of this order. Failure to file an amended complaint within the 

designated time will result in the dismissal of this action. This Court has no form complaint for 

a general civil action. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number 

used in this order (14-5489 JST) and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. 

The Clerk is directed to send Gaskins the Court's civil cover sheet. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05489-JST Document 11 Filed 02/02/15 Page 3 of 3