Tanbeer S. Brar v. Dhaliwal ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TANBEER SINGH BRAR AND No. 1:21-cv-00162-DAD-JLT AMANDEEP KAUR BRAR, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO v. REOPEN 14 PARGAT SINGH DHALIWAL, et al., (Doc. No. 14) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the court is pro se plaintiffs’ second motion to reopen this closed action filed on 18 March 2, 2021. (Doc. No. 14.) The court dismissed this case sua sponte on February 16, 2021 19 due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 9.) 20 In the pending motion to reopen, plaintiffs request that the court review their complaint 21 and determine what jurisdictional basis would permit this action to be brought in federal court and 22 allow this action to proceed on that basis. (Doc. No. 14 at 2.) 23 The court cannot do so. Federal courts may not hear every case brought before them. As 24 the court has advised plaintiffs previously, “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” 25 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). This means that federal 26 courts are limited to what they are able to hear, and this case does not meet the subject matter 27 requirements to be heard in federal court. If plaintiffs believe it to be appropriate to do so, they 28 1 | make seek relief in another court, such as a Superior Court of the State of California, but they are 2 | prohibited from prosecuting this action and seeking relief in federal court because this court does 3 | not have jurisdiction over the claims they are attempting to present. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. Plaintiff’s second motion to reopen this closed case (Doc. No. 14) is denied; 6 2. This case shall remain closed; and 7 3. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. 8 | IT IS SOORDERED. a 9 Li. wh F Dated: _ March 4, 2021 wea rE = 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28