Dhaliwal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TANBEER SINGH BRAR AND No. 1:21-cv-00162-DAD-JLT

AMANDEEP KAUR BRAR,

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO v. REOPEN 14 PARGAT SINGH DHALIWAL, et al., (Doc. No. 14) 15 Defendants.

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…