(PS) Bobo v. Kings County Assessor's Office, No. 1:2016cv00291 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending Granting to Dismiss Without Prejudice for Lack of Jurisdiction, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/7/2016. Referred to District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES LEWIS BOBO, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 KINGS COUNTY ASSESSOR OFFICE, 15 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-00291 LJO JLT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (Doc. 1) 16 17 Plaintiff claims Alice Bobo made a will leaving property to him. He visited the Assessor’s 18 Office in Kings County, where the property is located, and learned that the property had been sold 19 though the Assessor did not have paperwork demonstrating by whom it had been sold. He seeks an 20 order transferring the property back into the name of Alice Bobo and “100,000,000 million dollars.” 21 Because the Court finds there is no subject matter jurisdiction, the Court recommends the matter be 22 DISMISSED without prejudice. 23 I. 24 Background Attached to his complaint, Plaintiff provides a copy of a will executed by Alice Bobo. (Doc. 1 25 at 3-8) In the will, Ms. Bobo leaves real property to Plaintiff and several others. Id.at 3. Apparently, at 26 some point in the past, Plaintiff visited the Kings County Assessor’s Office and learned that the 27 property had been sold. Id. at 1. The Assessor’s office did not have any paperwork related to the sale 28 and, apparently, Plaintiff believes this failure should subject the office to liability. 1 1 II. 2 Jurisdiction The district court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and is empowered only to hear disputes 3 “authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 4 377 (1994); Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). The federal courts 5 are “presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case, unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” A-Z 6 Int'l. v. Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003). 7 A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] has subject- 8 matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). It is the obligation of 9 the district court “to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, 10 L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004). Without jurisdiction, the district court cannot decide the merits of a 11 case or order any relief. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 12 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon plaintiff as the party 13 asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; see also Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 543 (1974) 14 (acknowledging that a claim may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if it is “so insubstantial, 15 implausible, . . . or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within 16 the jurisdiction of the District Court”). 17 III. 18 Discussion and Analysis Notably, the complaint does not explain whether Ms. Bobo is still alive or whether the property 19 was sold at a time when she was alive. In any event, the fact that the Assessor’s office did not have 20 paperwork related to the sale is not a constitutional violation.2 Even if the Assessor’s Office sold the 21 property for past due taxes, the fact that it did not maintain the paperwork related to the sale at most 22 would constitute simple negligence. Thus, Court concludes that the complaint does not and cannot 23 state a cognizable federal court claim. 24 IV. Findings and Recommendations 25 Based upon the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS: 26 1. The action be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 27 28 2 Indeed, the Court would presume that such paperwork would have been more likely to have been found at the County’s Hall of Records. 2 1 4. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this action. 2 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 3 to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 4 Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days after 5 being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 6 Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 7 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 8 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 7, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.