1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GENEVA Y. HOLMES-JAMES, Case No. 22-cv-07758-DMR

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IFP

9 v. APPLICATION AND ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE

10 BETTY JEAN HARDING, et al.,

11 Defendants.

12 Self-represented Plaintiff Geneva Holmes-James filed a complaint and an application for 13 leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Docket Nos. 1, 3.] The court has reviewed 14 Plaintiff’s financial affidavit and finds that she has satisfied the economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and grants the application to proceed IFP. 15 Having reviewed the complaint, it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 16 over this action. The complaint is difficult to follow. It names three Defendants: Betty J. 17 Harding-Kennedy; Keith Broderick Benard; and Donald Ray Peoples. The complaint references 18 Plaintiff’s children, who do not appear to be in her custody. Specifically, the complaint alleges 19 that Plaintiff “can’t locate [her] kid’s [sic] at this time.” Compl. 5, 6. It appears that Plaintiff 20 alleges that Defendants have taken property from her, including money, cars, and homes, and that 21 she seeks the court’s assistance in returning her property so that she can get her children back. Id. 22 at 10. The complaint also refers to a “government lien” and a “tax lien” but does not explain the 23 significance of the liens. See generally Compl. 24 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and a “federal court is presumed to lack 25 jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. 26 Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). A federal court 27 may exercise either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. 1 the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. “[T]he presence or absence of federal- 2 question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal 3 jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly 4 pleaded complaint.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (quoting Caterpillar, 5 Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). Here, Plaintiff asserts that her case “belongs in 6 federal court under federal question jurisdiction because it involves a federal law or right.” 7 Compl. 2. However, the complaint does not identify a “federal law or right” at issue. Therefore, 8 federal question jurisdiction does not exist here. 9 A district court has diversity jurisdiction where the parties are diverse and “the matter in 10 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 11 1332. Parties are diverse only when the parties are “citizens of different states.” Id. A natural 12 person’s state citizenship is determined by his or her state of domicile. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert 13 Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). “A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she 14 resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return. A person residing in a given 15 state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.” Id. 16 (internal citation omitted). Here, it is not clear whether the parties are diverse, as Plaintiff does not 17 allege the citizenship of the parties. Plaintiff appears to reside in Washington, as her service 18 address is in Seattle, Washington. Compl. 1. The complaint alleges only that Defendant Harding- 19 Kennedy is located in Seattle, Washington. It does not allege the location of Defendants Benard 20 or Peoples and does not allege the citizenship of any of the three Defendants. Id. at 2, 10. 21 Additionally, the complaint contains no allegations about the amount in controversy. Therefore, 22 the complaint does not allege a basis for diversity jurisdiction. 23 By no later than February 28, 2023, Plaintiff shall show cause – in other words, explain in 24 writing why her case belongs in federal court, and why it should not be dismissed for lack of 25 subject matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiff does not file a timely response to this Order to Show 26 Cause, the court will recommend that the action be dismissed. 27 The court refers Plaintiff to the section “Representing Yourself” on the Court’s website, 1 unrepresented parties. Parties may schedule an appointment by calling 415-782-8982 or emailing 2 || fedpro@sfbar.org. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: January 31, 2023 Lie 5

DONNA M. RYU

6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 «44

15

QO 16

17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28