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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DACOREY SATTERWHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

24 HOUR FITNESS,

Defendant.

Case No.5:17-cv-00848-HRL 

ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A 

DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. No. 2

DaCorey Satterwhite seeks to sue 24 Hour Fitness for $5 million dollars for “pain and 

suffering.” He also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). His complaint is based on the 

following allegations: (1) a gym trainer “made a comment can you do a push-up”; (2) when he 

asked about his gym membership, an employee said that his “account was out” because 

Satterwhite missed his appointment, and then that employee “got an attitude”; (3) another

employee said to call the police on Satterwhite because Satterwhite was concerned about his 

membership; (4) when Satterwhite first started his membership, an employee “made a comment 

are you sure the money is on this card” and also said “you stink you smell like tobacco”; and (5) 

another employee “made a comment and said check in Big Dude.” (Dkt. 1). For the reasons

stated below, the undersigned grants the IFP application, but recommends that this matter be 
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

dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

A court may authorize the commencement of a civil action in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if the 

court is satisfied that the applicant cannot pay the requisite filing fees. 28 U.S.C § 1915(a)(1). In 

evaluating such an application, the court should “gran[t] or den[y] IFP status based on the 

applicant’s financial resources alone and then independently determin[e] whether to dismiss the 

complaint on the grounds that it is frivolous.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226-27 n.5 

(9th Cir. 1984). A court may dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing fee whenever it 

determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief 

may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). Additionally, the court has a continuing duty to 

determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss a case where jurisdiction is 

lacking. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Satterwhite’s IFP application is granted because the record indicates that he lacks sufficient 

finances to pay the filing fee. Even so, this court finds that Satterwhite’s suit cannot proceed here 

because there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over his complaint.

Satterwhite does not invoke federal question jurisdiction, (see Dkt. 1-1), and this court 

finds that there is no federal question jurisdiction anyway. Federal courts have original 

jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under” federal law if, based on the “well-pleaded 

complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief. Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 129 S. 

Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). Satterwhite’s complaint alleges no facts giving rise to a cognizable claim 

for relief under federal law.

There is also no basis for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal district 

courts have jurisdiction over civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or 

value of $75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs) and is between citizens of different states. 28 

U.S.C. § 1332. Here, the record indicates that both Satterwhite and defendant are California 

citizens. (Dkt. 1-1).

There being no basis for federal question or diversity jurisdiction, this case should be 
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

dismissed. Because the parties have yet to consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this court 

ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a District Judge. The undersigned further 

RECOMMENDS that Satterwhite’s complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Any party may serve and file objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days 

after being served. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2017

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge
4

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

5:17-cv-00848-HRL Notice sent by U.S. Mail on 5/8/17 to:

DaCorey Satterwhite

479 Blossom Hill Road

San Jose, CA 95123