Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02020/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02020-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Stockton
Defendant
Liem Hieu Le
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIEM HIEU LE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2020 DFL KJM PS

vs.

CITY OF STOCKTON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled

action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On November 6, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. 

Objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

Case 2:06-cv-02020-KJM Document 11 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 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

2

entire file, the court declines to adopt the findings and

recommendations.

In his complaint, plaintiff claims that this court has

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. But plaintiff

admits that both he and the defendant are California citizens. 

Moreover, plaintiff fails to allege that the amount in

controversy is over $75,000. While plaintiff alleges the

defendant discriminated against him, it is unclear whether

plaintiff intends to plead a federal cause of action given he

claims that this court has jurisdiction solely because of

diversity. Because it finds that it lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, the court does not reach the issue of whether

abstention is appropriate in this case. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to

dismiss is granted due to lack of federal subject matter

jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall have an opportunity to amend its

complaint within thirty days from the date of this order.

DATED: 02/27/2007

/s/ David F. Levi 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Le2020.jo

Case 2:06-cv-02020-KJM Document 11 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 2