Caputi v. Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, No. 1:2011cv02007 - Document 2 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/6/2011 recommending that action be DISMISSED re 1 Complaint. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 1/9/2012. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF

Caputi v. Superior Court of California, County of Fresno Doc. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 IMELDA CAPUTI, 9 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., 13 14 Defendants. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:11cv02007 AWI DLB FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 16 On December 5, 2011, Plaintiff Imelda Caputi, appearing pro se, filed this discrimination 17 action asserting claims under California Government Code section 12940, et seq. Plaintiff did not 18 file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. For the reasons that follow, 19 however, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the action. 20 DISCUSSION 21 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 22 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Generally, federal jurisdiction may be invoked if a civil action 23 arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or if 24 there is complete diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 25 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. It is presumed that a cause lies outside this limited scope, and the burden 26 of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting federal jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 27 U.S. at 377; Vacek v. United States Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir.2006). 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 According to the complaint, Plaintiff was terminated on or about October 12, 2010, by 2 Defendants County of Fresno, Fresno County Superior Court and/or the State of California. She 3 contends that at the time of her firing, she was receiving medical treatment for work-related 4 injuries. Although she provided evidence to Defendants that she would be able to return to work 5 on May 1, 2011, she alleges that Defendants terminated her without making any reasonable effort 6 to accommodate her disability. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated California Government 7 Code Section 12940, et seq. She requests damages, medical expenses and lost wages and 8 benefits. 9 Plaintiff’s sole claim is a disability discrimination claim under California law and she 10 therefore fails to state a claim that arises under federal law. Plaintiff also fails to invoke this 11 Court’s diversity jurisdiction as all parties are citizens of California for diversity purposes. See 28 12 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction requires that the parties be citizens of different states and the 13 amount in controversy exceed $75,000). Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction over 14 Plaintiff’s action. 15 The Court will not grant Plaintiff leave to amend because it is apparent that the 16 deficiencies identified in this order cannot be cured. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448–49 17 (9th Cir.1987) (“A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is 18 absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) 19 (internal quotations omitted). 20 21 RECOMMENDATION Based this Court’s lack of jurisdiction, the Court recommends that the action be 22 DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND . 23 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. 24 Ishii, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after 25 being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with 26 the 27 28 2 1 Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 2 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 3 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 4 1991). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a December 6, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.