1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DONALD E. UMBERGER, Case No. 22-cv-03280-SI

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IFP, DISMISSING

9 v. COMPLAINT WITOUT PREJUDICE,

AND MOOTING TRO WITHOUT

10 CITY OF SANTA ROSA, et al., PREJUDICE TO IT BEING REFILED

AT A LATER DATE

11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 4 12

13 On June 3, 2022, plaintiff filed the instant action asking this Court to “stop [his] extrajudicial 14 eviction [and] stop the harassment” plaintiff is allegedly experiencing at the hands of defendants. 15 Dkt. No. 1 at 71 (Complaint). Plaintiff alleges defendant City of Santa Rosa is “extrajudicially 16 evicting [him] from the property” where he has had tenancy in his “trailer conspicuous[ly] for 10 17 months.” Dkt. No. 4 at 3 (TRO). 18 Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 2. Plaintiff is 19 self employed as a handy man earning approximately $1200 per month with monthly expenses of 20 approximately $500 per month not including gas. Thus, plaintiff’s monthly income barely covers 21 his expenses. The Court therefore GRANTS plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 22 However, in an action in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, a district court 23 must screen the complaint to fulfill its duty under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires the 24 court to dismiss a case if the court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state 25 a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Pro se 26 pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 27 1 (9th Cir. 1990). 2 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any causes of action. Further, the complaint fails to 3 establish subject matter jurisdiction. Generally, a federal district court will have subject matter 4 || jurisdiction in two instances: (1) cases involving federal subject matter (causes of action brought 5 under federal law) or (2) diversity matters where the plaintiff and all defendants are citizens of 6 different states. See 28 U.S.C. §§$ 1331 (Federal Question Jurisdiction) and 1332 (Diversity of 4 Citizenship). The plaintiff and defendants are all California residents/entities. Plaintiff attempts to invoke federal question jurisdiction by stating his “First Claim” under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for defendants

9 “violating First, Fourth, Eighth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.” Dkt. No. 1 at 6.

10 However, this is the entirety of plaintiffs claim — there is no information about plaintiff's theory of the case arising under any of those statutes nor does plaintiff include the who, what, when, where, and how of his situation. Complaints must provide a narrative such that the Court can determine E subject matter jurisdiction and whether plaintiff has stated a claim. = For these reasons, the Court hereby DISMISSES the complaint WITHOUT prejudice. 4 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint addressing the issues of (1) failure to state causes of action 1S and (2) jurisdiction on or before July 5, 2020. If an amended complaint is not filed, the action will 16 be dismissed WITH prejudice. In light of the Court dismissing the complaint, plaintiff's TRO (Dkt. No. 4) is rendered moot 18 without prejudice to it being refiled at a later date. 19 Plaintiff is also directed to review the Norther District of California’s pro-bono 20 || representation resources: https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/finding-a-lawyer/ 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: June 14, 2022 Sate WU tee 24 25 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 26 27 28