1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

ANGELO YOSHANNAH SCRIGNA, No. 3:16-cv-00464-MO

R.A. SCRIGNA, and JENNIFER NOELLE OPINION AND ORDER

HUGHES, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ROBERT E. PEARSON LAW OFFICES, 

ROBERT E. PEARSON, ESQ., DANIEL 

MARGOLIN, and LAW OFFICES OF 

STEPHEN S. MARGOLIN LLP, 

 Defendants. 

MOSMAN, J., 

Pro se Plaintiffs filed a Complaint [2] alleging Legal malpractice, ethics violations, and 

alienation of affection. Plaintiffs’ filed an Application for Leave to Proceed IFP [1] and a 

Motion for Appointment of Counsel [3]. For the following reasons, I GRANT the Motion to 

Proceed IFP [1], DENY the Motion for Appointment of Counsel [3] and DISMISS the case for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Case 3:16-cv-00464-MO Document 6 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 3
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

DISCUSSION

1. Application for Leave to Proceed IFP 

All parties instituting any civil action in a district court must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 

1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the 

plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(1),

[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution 

or defense of any suit, action or proceeding. . .without prepayment of fees or 

security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement 

of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or 

give security therefor.

Because the information provided in Plaintiff’s affidavit reflects an inability to pay the fee to 

pursue this action, Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed IFP [1] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a) is GRANTED. 

2. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only as authorized by the Constitution and 

Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; see also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 

U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law, 

28 U.S.C. § 1331, or where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s 

citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, id. § 1332(a). The court may dismiss 

the action sua sponte where the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Franklin v. State of Or., 

State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1342 1341 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. 

v. Musick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974)). Moreover, where the court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction, it is “not required to issue a summons or follow the other procedural steps.” Loux v. 

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 58 (9th Cir. 1967). 

Case 3:16-cv-00464-MO Document 6 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 3
3 – OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs have not alleged a cause of action under federal law and instead bring claims 

for state law violations. Thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction. Furthermore, because at 

least one plaintiff and at least one defendant are citizens of Oregon, this court does not have 

diversity jurisdiction. See Majestic Ins. Co. v. Allianz Int’l Ins. Co., 133 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1220 

(N.D. Cal. 2001) (“In order for the parties to fulfill this requirement there must be complete 

diversity. That is, no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any of the defendants.”) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Application For Leave to Proceed IFP [1] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ complaint 

is DISMISSED due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of 

counsel [3] is DENIED AS MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 5th day of April, 2016. 

 

 /s/ Michael W. Mosman 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-00464-MO Document 6 Filed 04/05/16 Page 3 of 3