1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PEACE LOVE LIGHTNING, Case No. 23-cv-05067-TSH

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

9 v. PERSONAL JURISDICTION

10 OFFICER 1, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff Peace Love Lightning, proceeding pro se, brings this case against police officers 14 in Bartlett, Tennessee, alleging constitutional violations related to an incident that took place at a 15 Walmart parking lot in Bartlett in June 2023. Compl., ECF No. 1. However, Plaintiff’s complaint 16 fails to establish any basis for asserting personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendants. 17 “Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of their jurisdiction 18 over persons.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014). Where “there is no applicable federal statute governing personal jurisdiction, the law of the state in which the district court sits 19 applies.” Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 20 2003) (citations omitted). California’s long-arm statute is co-extensive with the federal due 21 process clause. Cal. Civ. P. Code § 410.10. Therefore, this court must determine whether the 22 exercise of jurisdiction over the defendants “comports with the limits imposed by federal due 23 process.” Daimler, 571 U.S. at 125. To satisfy due process, a defendant must have sufficient 24 “minimum contacts” with the forum state that “maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional 25 notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 26 (1945). The two recognized bases for exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident 27 1 defendant are “general jurisdiction” and “specific jurisdiction.” Doe v. Am. Nat. Red Cross, 112 2 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 1997). 3 General jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant exists when the defendant engages in 4 “continuous and systematic general business contacts” that “approximate physical presence in the 5 forum state.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004) 6 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Here, nowhere does Plaintiff allege that any of the defendants have had any contact with the state of California, let alone “continuous and 7 systematic general business contacts.” According to the complaint, all of the at-issue conduct took 8 place in Tennessee, and the defendants are officers in that state. Plaintiff has thus not pled a basis 9 for general jurisdiction over the defendants here. 10 Specific jurisdiction exists if three prongs are satisfied: “(1) [t]he non-resident defendant 11 must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident 12 thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of 13 conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) 14 the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and 15 (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be 16 reasonable.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the first 17 two prongs. Id. If plaintiff does so, the defendant must demonstrate that the court’s exercise of 18 personal jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Id. Here, again, all of the conduct alleged occurred 19 in Tennessee. There is no allegation that Defendants directed their activities toward California— 20 as opposed to at Plaintiff—who appears to be a California resident. Comp. at 2. Likewise, 21 Defendants are not alleged to have engaged in any forum-related activities. Under these 22 circumstances, Plaintiff has not alleged a basis for specific jurisdiction. 23 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE as to how the Court has 24 personal jurisdiction over any of the Defendants here. Alternatively, Plaintiff may request that this 25 mattered be transferred to the Western District of Tennessee pursuant to the federal transfer 26 statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1631, which provides that whenever the court finds that “there is a want of 27 1 other court in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or 2 || noticed[.]” Plaintiff must file a written response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause by October 3 18, 2023. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action for lack of personal jurisdiction. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: October 4, 2023 7 - ( \

THOMAS S. HIXSON

8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28