Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06225/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06225-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hospital Couriers Nevada LLC
Defendant
Troy King
Plaintiff

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

TROY KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOSPITAL COURIERS NEVADA LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:18-cv-06225-KAW 

SCREENING ORDER REVIEWING 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 5

On October 11, 2018, Plaintiff Troy King filed this civil action and application to proceed 

in forma pauperis. (Dkt. Nos. 1 and 4.) On October 26, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP 

Application. (Dkt. No. 5.) The Court now screens Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915, and, for the reasons set forth below, concludes that the operative complaint is deficient.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The in forma pauperis statute provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if at any time 

the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action (1) is frivolous or 

malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

A complaint is frivolous under Section 1915 where there is no subject matter jurisdiction. 

See Castillo v. Marshall, 207 F.3d 15, 15 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); see also Pratt v. Sumner, 

807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 19987) (recognizing the general proposition that a complaint should be 

dismissed as frivolous on Section 1915 review where subject matter jurisdiction is lacking).

A complaint may also be dismissed for failure to state a claim, because Section 1915(e)(2) 

parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint, therefore, must allege facts that plausibly establish the 

defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). When the 

Case 3:18-cv-06225-WHO Document 8 Filed 01/04/19 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

complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, courts must “construe the pleadings liberally . . . to 

afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)

(citations omitted). Upon dismissal, pro se plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be given 

leave to “amend their complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint 

could not be cured by amendment.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1235 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) 

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 

2000).

II. DISCUSSION

As courts of limited jurisdiction, “federal courts have an independent obligation to ensure 

that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 

562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting 

that district courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject matter 

jurisdiction”). There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A 

district court has federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, 

laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331. A cause of action “arises under federal law 

only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.” Hansen v. Blue 

Cross of Cal., 891 F.2d 1384, 1386 (9th Cir. 1989). A district court has diversity jurisdiction 

“where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between citizens 

of different states, or citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” Id.

Here, Plaintiff appears to be alleging all state law claims because out of a total of eight 

causes of action, the first five are brought under the California Fair Employment & Housing Act 

(“FEHA”) (California Government Code § 12900, et seq.), and the last three claims are brought 

under California Labor Code § 1102.5(c) (Sixth Cause of Action), California Business and 

Professions Code § 17200 (Seventh Cause of Action), and the California common law tort of 

defamation (Eighth Cause of Action). (Dkt. No. 1.) Therefore, because all eight causes of action in 

Plaintiff’s Complaint are state law based, Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks any federal question 

Case 3:18-cv-06225-WHO Document 8 Filed 01/04/19 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

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Moreover, because Defendants Hospital Couriers Nevada, 

LLC and Does 1-20 are not specified as being entities or citizens of States other than California 

(and Hospital Couriers Nevada, LLC is mentioned as a “limited liability corporation doing 

business in the County of Contra Costa, State of California”), and the amount in controversy is not 

specified as exceeding the value of $75,000, Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks a clear basis for diversity 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as well. 

Thus, Plaintiff has failed to set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief” as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the complaint is insufficient to satisfy Section 1915 review.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint are insufficient

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Thus, Plaintiff must provide the legal and factual basis for all

claims, and must do so by filing an amended complaint by January 25, 2019. If Plaintiff fails to

file an amended complaint by that date, or the amended complaint fails to cure all defects, the case 

will be reassigned to a district judge with the report and recommendation that the complaint be 

dismissed. 

In amending the complaint, Plaintiff may wish to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s 

Help Desk for assistance—a free service for pro se litigants—by calling (415) 782-8982 to make 

an appointment. While the Help Desk does not provide legal representation, a licensed attorney 

may assist Plaintiff in determining whether there are viable claims, and how to properly plead 

them. Plaintiff may also wish to consult a manual the court has adopted to assist pro se litigants in 

presenting their case. This manual, and other free information for pro se litigants, is available 

online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06225-WHO Document 8 Filed 01/04/19 Page 3 of 3