1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 STEVE BELL, and others, Case No. 21-cv-04535-NC 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE v. DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 13 SUBJECT MATTER

MICHAELS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, JURISDICTION

14 INC., and others, Re: ECF 1 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff Steve Bell filed a complaint against Defendants on June 11, 2021. ECF 1. 19 In the complaint, Bell alleges that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction “because the 20 Military Installation(s) where the housing at issue is located is within the geographical 21 boundaries of Monterey County.” Id. at 5. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction 22 and are presumptively without jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 23 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A district court can have subject matter jurisdiction through 24 federal question or diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The conclusory 25 language in Bell’s complaint is not sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction 26 through federal question or diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Bell to 27 show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed by June 21, 2021. 1 2 || Dated: June 14, 2021 h-—eo——— _

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

3 United States Magistrate Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 15

16

o 17

E ig zZ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28