Burlingham

(PS) Young v. Burlingham

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 15, 20212:21-cv-01660California880 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANIEL CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, No. 2:21-cv-01660 KJM AC PS Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STEVEN RICHARD BURLINGHAM, et al., Defendants. 17 On September 14, 2021, plaintiff filed this action in pro se and paid the filing fee. ECF No. 1. The case was accordingly referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). The undersigned has reviewed the complaint and finds that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and that this action accordingly must be dismissed with prejudice. On September 17, 2021, the undersigned issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice, cautioning plaintiff that failure to respond would result in a recommendation of such dismissal. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff did not respond. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, (1994). In 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a), “Congress…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.