(PS) Blank v. Sacramento Public Library, No. 2:2016cv02578 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/09/16 ORDERING that the 2 4 Motions to Proceed IFP are GRANTED; and RECOMMENDING that this action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections to these F&Rs within 14 days. (Benson, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Blank v. Sacramento Public Library Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL LOUIS BLANK, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:16-cv-2578 GEB GGH Plaintiff, ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v. SACRAMENTO PUBLIC LIBRARY, Defendant. 16 17 18 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed his complaint in pro se on October 28, 2016, ECF No. 1, and moved for in 19 forma pauperis (“IFP”) status on the same date. ECF No. 2. On November 2, 2016 the 20 undersigned, which has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1) and 21 Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21), issued an order directing Plaintiff to refile 22 his Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis within 14 days and an Amended Complaint within 30 23 days. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff’s Complaint related to the Sacramento Public Library having 24 excluding him from its premises for various identified reasons. 25 In its November 2, 2016 Order the court explained to plaintiff that he had alleged no 26 federal claims in his Complaint which he purported to bring pursuant to Title VI, codified at 42 27 U.S.C. § 2000d, and what the required allegations were to proceed under that statute. Id. at 3:5- 28 14. The court further explained the requirements for proper pleadings under the Federal Rules of 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this District. Id. at 2:3-3:3. Finally, the undersigned gave 2 notice that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Order may result in a recommendation that the 3 action be dismissed. Id. at 3:22-23. 4 5 Plaintiff filed a new Motion for IFP Status on November 14, 2016, ECF No. 4, but has not filed an Amended Complaint. 6 7 8 DISCUSSION Plaintiff has made the showing required showing to qualify for IFP status. Accordingly the court will GRANT his motion. 9 Plaintiff has not, however, complied with the portion of the court’s order to file an 10 Amended Complaint within 30 days of the order, or by December 2, 2012. This does not, 11 however, resolve the issue of whether plaintiff may proceed with his action. 12 This court has been unable to determine a jurisdictional basis for plaintiff’s claims to 13 remain in this court. A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only 14 those cases authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 15 Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1 provides that the judicial power of the 16 United States is vested in the Supreme Court, “and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may 17 from time to time ordain and establish.” Congress therefore confers jurisdiction upon federal 18 district courts, as limited by U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 19 689, 697-99 (1992). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party 20 or by the court. See Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 21 (9th Cir. 1996). 22 The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal 23 question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Statutes which regulate specific subject 24 matter may also confer federal jurisdiction. See generally, W.W. Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J. 25 Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 2:5. Unless a complaint presents a plausible 26 assertion of a substantial federal right, a federal court does not have jurisdiction. See Bell v. 27 Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1945). 28 2 1 In order to claim jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 plaintiff must, as threshold matter, 2 establish that his state citizenship, California, and defendant’s state citizenship are diverse. The 3 defendant, the Sacramento Public Library, is clearly a California entity. Thus there is no diversity 4 jurisdiction in this case. Under § 1331 plaintiff must plead a federal statute or Constitutional 5 provision to continue under federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff pleaded violations of Title VI 6 in his original Complaint and this court explained the elements that must be shown to gain 7 jurisdiction under this statute, none of which elements were satisfied by the plaintiff’s complaint. 8 9 Accordingly, the undersigned recommends dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. 10 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 11 The Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 13 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 14 days of being served with these findings and recommendations Plaintiff may file written 15 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 16 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 17 the specified time may waive his right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 18 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 Dated: December 9, 2016 20 21 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
