Kippes

I. BACKGROUND

14 Plaintiff’s complaint in this case alleges that he is the victim of a cryptocurrency scam. 15 See generally Dkt. 1. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge (Dkt. 9), but 16 the Defendants have not yet appeared or consented. 17 The Defendants are all sued as “John Does” because Plaintiff alleges he does not know 18 their identities. Dkt. 1 ¶ 5. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte application for leave to serve 19 third-party subpoenas on various entities prior to the Rule 26(f) conference in an effort to learn the 20 identities of the Doe Defendants. Dkt. 5 (the “Application”). 21 The Court’s review of the Application raises a question of whether the Court has subject 22 matter jurisdiction in this case. For the reasons that follow, Court concludes that the complaint fails to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that by June 11, 2025, Plaintiff must file either a response to this order or an amended complaint that demonstrates that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiff fails to file one of the required documents by the deadline or fails…