Summary
The court grants Plaintiff Ragni Larsen-Orta's application to proceed in forma pauperis but recommends dismissal of the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concludes that the complaint improperly seeks federal review of a California Department of Health Care Services administrative decision and that alleging violations of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments does not establish federal jurisdiction.
Holdings
- A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous during screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
- The complaint did not establish federal subject matter jurisdiction because an alleged violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments did not transform the action into a proper federal case or confer jurisdiction over a de facto appeal of a state administrative decision.
- The complaint could not be amended to sufficiently allege a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint satisfied the in forma pauperis screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
- Whether the federal district court had subject matter jurisdiction over what was effectively an appeal of a California state administrative decision.
- Whether the complaint could be amended to establish a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (6)
- Castillo v. Marshall, 207 F.3d 15, 15 (9th Cir. 1997)(followed)
- Pratt v. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011)(followed)
- Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004)(followed)
- Hansen v. Blue Cross of Cal., 891 F.2d 1384, 1386 (9th Cir. 1989)(followed)
- IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…