Navin v. Peyton ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 CATHY NAVIN, Case No. 2:24-cv-01967-JAD-EJY 5 Plaintiff, 6 v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING 7 TROY E. PEYTON and CASE KEELY PURDUE CHIPPOLETTI, 8 Defendants. ECF Nos. 1, 2, 4 9 10 On 10/25/24, the magistrate judge entered the following report and recommendation: 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), 12 Complaint, and Motion to Withdraw the Counsel-of-Record. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, 2. Plaintiff’s IFP 13 application is complete. However, Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion to Withdraw border on 14 indecipherable and fail to establish a basis to proceed in federal court. To the extent Plaintiff asks 15 the Court to intervene in a state court proceeding, there is no basis for the Court to do so. For these 16 reasons, the Court recommends denying the IFP application, dismissing the Complaint with 17 prejudice, and denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw. 18 District Courts have the authority to dismiss cases sua sponte without further notice to a 19 plaintiff when the plaintiff “cannot possibly win relief.” Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 20 615, 613 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, although not entirely clear, Plaintiff appears to be asking the federal 21 court to intervene in a state court proceeding. See ECF No. 2. Under well settled law, as well as the 22 circumstances presented here, the Court declines to do so. Kleenwell Biohazard Waste & General 23 Ecology Consultants, Inc. v. Nelson, 48 F.3d 391, 393 (9th Cir. 1995) (“federal courts should abstain 24 from intervening in pending state judicial proceedings out of deference to the interests of comity and 25 federalism.”). Further, Plaintiff may be complaining about attorneys who represented her at one 26 time, and who withdrew from representation. ECF No. 2 at 3. There may also have been an accident 27 in which Plaintiff fell that is subject to arbitration. Id. The Court thinks there was some effort to 1 || and does not establish diversity jurisdiction! ECF No. 1-1 (identifying all parties as Neva 2 || residents and failing to allege damages in excess of $75,000), ECF Nos. 1-1, 2 (failing to allege 3 || decipherable federal cause of action). In fact, as stated, Plaintiffs claims border on indecipherab 4 || and there appear to be no set of facts that would entitle her to proceed in federal Court. Id. See al 5 || Denton v. Hernandez, 504 US. 25, 33, (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1986 6 || Buckey v. Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992). 7 Accordingly, and based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff 8 || Application to Proceed in forma pauperis and Complaint (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1) be dismissed wi 9 || prejudice. 10 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw the Counsel-c 11 |} Record (ECF No. 2) be denied with prejudice. 12 Dated this 25th day of October, 2024. 13 14 . ELAYNAY. YOU 15 UNITED.STATES MAG TE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 ! “Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by Constituti and statute.” K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). Fede 23 district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the Unit States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal district courts also have original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cas 24 “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; each of the plainti 5 must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.” Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 10 (9th Cir. 2001). The district court has the authority to determine its own jurisdiction. Special Investments, Inc. v. Ae %6 Air, Inc., 360 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2004). “The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving tt the case is properly in federal court.” McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing McM 7 v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). A court may raise the question of subject-mat jurisdiction sua sponte, and it must dismiss a case if it determines it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. □□□□ Fed. R. C 28 P. 12(h)(3). Here, as the party seeking to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of establishi jurisdiction exists, which she does not do. Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1040 (9th Cir. 2015). ORDER 2 The deadline for any party to object to this recommendation was November 8, 2024, and 1 3 party filed anything or asked to extend the deadline to do so. “[N]o review is required of a 4 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” United States v. 5 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the report and 6 recommendation, I find good cause to adopt it, and I do. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 4] is ADOPTED in its entirety; 8 THIS CASE IS DISMISSED with prejudice; plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis ? and motion to withdraw the counsel of record [ECF Nos. 1, 2] are DENIED, and the Clerk of 10 |) Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. 1] 13 Dated: November 13, 2024 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28