Source: http://nv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180314_0003116.DNV.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 03:57:12+00:00

Document:
Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Daniel P. Klahn, Sr.'s amended application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), filed on November 15, 2016. Also before the court is Klahn's complaint (ECF No. 1-2).
Klahn has submitted the declaration required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, his request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
“Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). Federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.” Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). Federal courts have the jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction. Special Investments, Inc. v. Aero Air, Inc., 360 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2004). A court may raise the question of subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte, and it must dismiss a case if it determines it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).

References: § 1915
 v. 
 § 1331
 § 1332
 v. 
 v.