Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01535/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01535-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gene Catania
Defendant
George Nimer Martha
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

GEORGE NIMER MARTHA,

Plaintiff,

v.

GENE CATANIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:19-cv-01535-KAW 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE; ORDER REASSIGNING 

CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 4

On March 22, 2019, Plaintiff George Martha filed this case for slander and invasion of 

privacy against Defendant Gene Catania. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application 

to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 4.) Having considered the application, the Court 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. On April 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a 

declination to proceed before the undersigned, but, having screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court reassigns this case to a district judge with the recommendation that 

it be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

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. 1987) (recognizing the general proposition that a complaint should be 

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

Case 3:19-cv-01535-JST Document 17 Filed 04/22/19 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

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 alleges that Defendant has been telling their neighbors that he is a thief and 

has been stealing his van parts. (See Compl. at 4, 8.) In addition to the slander cause of action, 

Plaintiff also alleges invasion of privacy. Id. at 6. Both of these are state law causes of action. 

Since both parties reside on the same street in Concord, California, there is no diversity. (See Dkt. 

No. 3.) Accordingly, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit, and the 

complaint must be dismissed pursuant to § 1915.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to 

adjudicate the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS 

that the case be dismissed without prejudice, so that Plaintiff may refile his lawsuit in Contra 

Costa County Superior Court.

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge 

within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D. 

Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

Case 3:19-cv-01535-JST Document 17 Filed 04/22/19 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

may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS 

Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: April 22, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01535-JST Document 17 Filed 04/22/19 Page 3 of 3