Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00906/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00906-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Monnie
Defendant
Victoria L. Reyes
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTORIA L. REYES,

Plaintiff,

v.

PASTOR MONNIE OF CHURCH,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-906-GEB-KJN PS

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff Victoria Reyes, who proceeds in this action without counsel, has requested leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.)1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915, the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if it determines that the allegation of 

poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief 

may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.

For the reasons discussed below, the court concludes that it lacks federal subject matter 

jurisdiction over the action. Accordingly, the court recommends that the action be dismissed 

without prejudice, and that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis in this court be 

denied as moot. 

 

1

This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1).

Case 2:16-cv-00906-GEB-KJN Document 3 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 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

2

A federal court has an independent duty to assess whether federal subject matter 

jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. 

Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had a duty 

to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties 

raised the issue or not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The court must sua sponte dismiss the case if, at any time, it determines that it lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A federal district court generally has original 

jurisdiction over a civil action when: (1) a federal question is presented in an action “arising 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” or (2) there is complete diversity of 

citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).

Here, plaintiff’s complaint is vague and at times unintelligible. Nevertheless, liberally 

construed, the complaint alleges that the sole named defendant, Pastor Monnie, is a pastor at a 

church in Sacramento, California, where plaintiff goes to church and obtains other services, such 

as meal services and receipt of mail. Plaintiff’s boyfriend, Ralph Mendez, apparently resides in a

men’s home affiliated with the church. According to plaintiff, she has not yet filed for divorce

from her husband, but plans to do so soon, and is pregnant with Ralph Mendez’s child. Plaintiff’s 

complaint outlines various miscellaneous grievances against Pastor Monnie, including that he 

impeded Mr. Mendez’s ability to obtain medical care; prevented Mr. Mendez from working for 

the church in light of Mr. Mendez allegedly being on state parole for a sex offense; put Mr. 

Mendez on edge by driving by Mr. Mendez with his vehicle; and forbade plaintiff from seeing 

Mr. Mendez, because Pastor Monnie viewed their relationship as adulterous. The complaint fails 

to identify any specific causes of action. 

In this case, the court plainly does not have federal question jurisdiction over the action, 

because plaintiff does not assert any federal claims against defendant. Nor does it appear 

plausible that plaintiff could assert some type of federal claim against defendant, a non-state actor 

and pastor at a private church. Furthermore, there is no diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, 

because both plaintiff and defendant are citizens of California. Therefore, the court recommends 

that the action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. 

Case 2:16-cv-00906-GEB-KJN Document 3 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court (ECF No. 2) be denied as 

moot.

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

In light of these recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading,

discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of these findings and 

recommendations. Other than objections to the findings and recommendations or non-frivolous 

motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any pleadings or motions 

until the findings and recommendations are resolved.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: May 26, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00906-GEB-KJN Document 3 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 3