Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191101_0015185.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-28 13:10:49
Document Index: 275333894

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1331', '§ 1331', '§ 1332']

FindACase™ | Alfaro Buttany v. Greyhound Corp.
Alfaro Buttany v. Greyhound Corp.
MICHALLA C. ALFARO BUTTANY, Plaintiff,
GREYHOUND CORPORATION, Defendants.
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). ECF No. 2. The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be GRANTED.
The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious, ” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the complaint is frivolous, by drafting the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules- policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Plaintiff's claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1).
To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint's deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).
Plaintiff brings suit against Greyhound Corporation, which plaintiff alleges is located in Sacramento, California. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff checks a box marking the basis for jurisdiction as federal question. Id. at 3. When asked to provide the specific federal law or constitutional provision providing federal question jurisdiction, plaintiff wrote “contract product liability.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that on the way to Reno, Nevada, “it felt like something broke and hit me on the right upper thigh leg, and my left forehead.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff sustained bruises on the leg and couldn't sleep on the right side for a couple of months, and still experiences pain. Id. at 6. It is also alleged that there are still bruises and a bump on plaintiff's forehead. Id.
Because plaintiff's complaint contains no basis for federal jurisdiction it must be dismissed with prejudice. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). In 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a), “Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction over two general types of cases: cases that ‘aris[e] under' federal law, § 1331, and cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75, 000 and there is diversity of citizenship among the parties, § 1332(a). These jurisdictional grants are known as ‘federal-question jurisdiction' and ‘diversity jurisdiction,' respectively.” Home Depot U.S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, __ U.S. __, 139 S.Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019), reh'g denied, No. 17-1471, 2019 WL 3538074 (U.S. Aug. 5, 2019).
The court notes that diversity cannot serve as a basis for jurisdiction because plaintiff alleges that both plaintiff and defendant are California citizens. ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff's case alleges jurisdiction based on federal question. Id. at 3. There is no federal question jurisdiction available because no federal law or constitutional right is at issue in this case. 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)). “[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.” Id. at 1089 (quoting Rivet v. Regions Bank, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998)). Plaintiffs complaint does not invoke any federal law or constitutional right, and clearly presents only a state tort claim and/or a contract claim that does not require the court to resolve a federal question.
Because there is no federal jurisdiction, the undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed and that leave to amend not granted in this instance because, in light of the facts at issue in this case, the complaint's ...