Jevarien Zymell Dunlap v. Samaritan House

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California grants Jevarien Dunlap’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and orders Dunlap to show cause why the complaint against Samaritan House should not be dismissed. The court identifies potential deficiencies in diversity jurisdiction, including failure to establish complete diversity and plausibly allege an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, and continues the case management conference.

Holdings

1. A federal court must independently determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party has challenged jurisdiction.
2. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000; the party invoking jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing those requirements.
3. The complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction because it did not identify a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
4. A pro se plaintiff ordinarily must be given leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the pleading's deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint adequately established federal subject-matter jurisdiction through diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
3. Whether the complaint established federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
4. Whether the complaint should be dismissed or plaintiff should receive an opportunity to amend after IFP screening.

Disposition

other