Coleman v. Baumgartner ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WENDELL COLEMAN, Case No. 23-cv-01737-AMO 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 9 v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 10 KENDRA BAUMGARTNER, et al., JURISDICTION 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pro se plaintiff Wendell Coleman commenced this action on April 11, 2023. ECF 1. He 14 asserts claims for violations of 10 U.S.C. § 921, 18 U.S.C. § 35, § 241, § 242, § 1001, § 1621, and 15 25 C.F.R. § 11.404, in connection with child custody, domestic violence, and other familial 16 disputes. Id. at 2. 17 There are two bases for subject matter jurisdiction in federal court: federal question 18 jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction requires that the claims 19 asserted in a complaint arise under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Diversity jurisdiction requires 20 that (1) the amount in controversy exceed $75,000 and (2) the parties be citizens of different 21 states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Courts have “an independent obligation to determine whether 22 subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. 23 Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). If a federal court determines that it lacks subject matter 24 jurisdiction, it must dismiss the entire complaint. Id. 25 Mr. Coleman’s complaint asserts that this Court has both federal question jurisdiction and 26 diversity jurisdiction. ECF 1 at 2. However, neither basis appears proper. First, federal question 27 jurisdiction does not exist because the federal criminal laws on which Mr. Coleman relies provide ] at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2014). There also appears to be no basis for diversity jurisdiction 2 || because, even if the amount in controversy requirement were satisfied, all parties are citizens of 3 California based on the facts alleged in the complaint. 4 Accordingly, the Court orders Mr. Coleman to show cause why this action should not be 5 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Coleman must file a written response to this 6 || order by no later than September 15, 2023. Failure to file a written response will result in 7 || dismissal of this action without prejudice. 8 To aid in his compliance with this Order, Mr. Coleman may wish to contact the Federal 9 || Pro Bono Project’s Help Desk—a free service for pro se litigants—by calling (415) 782-8982 to 10 || make an appointment to obtain legal assistance from a licensed attorney. More information about 11 the program is available online at the Court’s website . %L IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: August 21, 2023 oo. | | fh - 15 z CELI MARTINEZ-OLGUI = 16 United States District Judge Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28