Sewell v. Franklin Credit Management Corporation, et al.

Sewell · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · March 11, 2025 · No. 2:24-cv-02241 DJC CKD (PS)

Summary

The United States Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of the action for lack of jurisdiction after the pro se plaintiff failed to respond to an order to show cause. The court also stays pleading, discovery, and motion practice pending resolution of the findings and recommendations, except for objections and non-frivolous emergency motions. Plaintiff is given fourteen days to file objections.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Writing for the Court
Carolyn K. Delaney
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Decision date
March 11, 2025
Docket number
2:24-cv-02241 DJC CKD (PS)
Procedural posture
Pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis was ordered to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. After plaintiff failed to respond, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal and stayed pleading, discovery, and motion practice pending resolution of the findings and recommendations by the assigned district judge.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Marvin A. Sewell v. Franklin Credit Management Corporation, et al.
Disposition
other

Topics

subject matter jurisdictioncivil procedurepleadings

Practice areas

federal civil procedurejurisdiction

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after plaintiff failed to allege a proper jurisdictional basis and failed to respond to the order to show cause.
  2. Whether pleading, discovery, and motion practice should be stayed pending resolution of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations.

Holdings

  1. Because plaintiff failed to respond to the order to show cause concerning the action's jurisdictional basis, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was recommended.
  2. Pleading, discovery, and motion practice were stayed pending resolution of the findings and recommendations, except for objections and non-frivolous emergency-relief motions.

Key quotations

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (at 1)
In light of these recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading, discovery, and motion practice in this action are STAYED pending resolution of the findings and recommendations. (at 1)

Factual background

Plaintiff Marvin A. Sewell was proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. The court previously required him to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and advised that failure to allege a proper jurisdictional basis would result in a recommendation of dismissal. Plaintiff filed no response.

Procedural history

The action was referred to the magistrate judge under Local Rule 302(c)(21). On February 6, 2025, the magistrate judge issued an order to show cause regarding the lack of an adequately alleged jurisdictional basis. Plaintiff did not respond, so the magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and ordered a stay pending review by the assigned district judge.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…