SHARP v. HOWARD

No. 2:17-cv-0254 TLN CKD PS.

CALYSTA SHARP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHAS HOWARD, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Calysta Sharp, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Caitlyn Howard, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302(c)(21).

Plaintiff Calysta Sharp has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Although plaintiff Sharp has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a), plaintiff Howard has not. Because the complaint names two plaintiffs, both plaintiffs must submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff Howard will be provided the opportunity to submit either the appropriate affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate filing fee.

The complaint is signed by only plaintiff Sharp. If plaintiff Howard intends to join this litigation as a plaintiff, she must sign the complaint. In addition, all pleadings submitted to the court must be signed by both plaintiffs proceeding in propria personas.

The complaint alleges diversity and federal question as bases for subject matter jurisdiction in this court. However, plaintiffs cite no federal statute or constitutional provision which can serve as the basis of federal question jurisdiction and the complaint does not set forth the amount in controversy for assessing the propriety of diversity jurisdiction. The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. In the absence of a basis for federal jurisdiction, plaintiffs' claims cannot proceed in this venue. Because there is no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction evident in the complaint, plaintiffs will be ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. Failure to allege a proper basis for subject matter jurisdiction will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff Howard shall submit, no later than March 1, 2017, either a completed application and affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided by the Clerk of Court, or the appropriate filing fee; plaintiff's failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff Howard a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; and

3. No later than March 1, 2017, plaintiffs shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases