Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00693/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00693-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of America
Defendant
Chase Bank
Defendant
Wonderly Correia
Defendant
Frank Silva
Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank
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

FRANK SILVA,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CHASE BANK; WONDERLY

CORREIA; BANK OF AMERICA AND 

WELLS FARGO BANK,

 Defendants.

1:16-cv-000693-DAD-EPG

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

FILL OUT A COMPLETED MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

APPLICATION OR PAY THE $400.00 

FILING FEE IN FULL

(Doc. 3.)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil action. (Doc. 1). On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff 

submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, however, 

he did not submit a completed form. (Doc. 3). Specifically, Plaintiff did not complete items 1-

4, or item number 6. The Court is not able to consider the application until the form is 

completed. Therefore, if Plaintiff wishes to proceed in forma pauperis, he shall file a completed 

application no later than June 30, 2016. In the alternative, Plaintiff may pay the $400.00 filing 

fee by that same date.

In determining whether to file a completed form or pay the filing fee, the Court advises 

Plaintiff that a cursory review of the complaint suggests that this Court may not have 

jurisdiction over his case. (Doc. 1). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack 

inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases 

which the United States Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v. 

Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994). To proceed in federal court, a plaintiff‟s pleading 

must establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. It appears there may be two potential 

Case 1:16-cv-00693-DAD-EPG Document 5 Filed 05/19/16 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

bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction in this case: 1) federal question jurisdiction, or 2) 

diversity jurisdiction.

Plaintiff is advised that “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, the complaint does not appear contain any allegation of a violation arising under the 

Constitution, federal law, or treaties of the United States. 

Additionally, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have original 

jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in controversy exceeds the 

sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of different states.” 8 

U.S.C. § 1332. Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006). “Subject matter jurisdiction 

based upon diversity of citizenship requires that no defendant have the same citizenship as any 

plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a); Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env't, 236 F.3d 495, 

499 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam), abrogated on other grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 

U.S. 77, 130 S.Ct. 1181 (2010). “A plaintiff suing in federal court must show in his pleading, 

affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if 

he does not do so, the court ... on discovering the [defect], must dismiss the case, unless the 

defect be corrected by amendment.” Id. (quoting Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456 (1926)).

Here, Plaintiff is citizen of California and it appears that at least one of the Defendants

(Wonderly Correia, a teller at Chase Bank), is also a California citizen. Since both parties are 

citizens of California, it appears that diversity jurisdiction does not exist at this stage the 

proceeding.

Plaintiff is advised that the Court is not making a formal ruling regarding whether 

jurisdiction is proper. Instead, it is providing this information to Plaintiff to assist in his 

Case 1:16-cv-00693-DAD-EPG Document 5 Filed 05/19/16 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

decision on whether to pay the filing fee in this action. Plaintiff if also advised that if he wishes 

to pursue his case, the Court will formally screen Plaintiff‟s case and allow him the opportunity 

to amend the pleading if the Court determines the pleading is deficient.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

The Clerk shall attach an application to proceed in forma pauperis to this order. No 

later than June 30, 2016, Plaintiff shall submit the attached application fully completed and 

signed, or in the alternative, pay the $400.00 filing fee. Finally, if Plaintiff decides he no longer 

wishes to pursue this action, he shall file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by June 30, 2016.

No requests for extension will be granted without a showing of good cause. Failure to 

timely comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00693-DAD-EPG Document 5 Filed 05/19/16 Page 3 of 3