Opinion
Case No. 5:14-cv-00237-PSG
01-29-2014
KATHRYN CSERNA, Plaintiff, v. CENTENNIAL RECREATION CENTER, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION WITH REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT CASE BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
(Re: Docket Nos. 1 and 2)
Before the court is Plaintiff Kathryn Cserna's application to proceed in forma pauperis and motion to remove her case to federal court. The civil cover sheet indicates that Plaintiff bases subject matter jurisdiction on her suggestion that the U.S. Government is the plaintiff in this case. The docket reflects this is not so. Moreover, a review of the pleadings filed by Cserna in this case provides no alternative basis for subject matter jurisdiction. "In order for this court to have subject matter jurisdiction over" the "cause of action, Plaintiff would have to either: 1) also allege a federal cause of action; or 2) show diversity of citizenship between" her and Defendant Centennial Recreation Center. Csema does neither. The court therefore ORDERS that the case be reassigned to a district judge with the recommendation that the case be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
See Docket No. 2.
See Docket No. 1-1 at 1.
See Docket No. 1.
Lowery v. City of Santa Clara, Case No. 5:09-cv-00229-PVT, 2009 WL 975455, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2009) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006) ("The basic statutory giants of federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Section 1331 provides for '[f]ederal-question' jurisdiction, § 1332 for '[d]iversity of citizenship' jurisdiction. A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when she pleads a colorable claim 'arising under' the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 681-685 (1946). She invokes § 1332 jurisdiction when she presents a claim between parties of diverse citizenship that exceeds the required jurisdictional amount, currently $75,000. See § 1332(a)." (internal citation omitted))).
The undersigned is ordering reassignment to a district judge and issuing a report and recommendation because, absent consent of all parties, a magistrate judge does not have authority to make case-dispositive rulings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (authorizing magistrate judges to submit "findings of fact and recommendations" to the district judge); Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 548-49 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting "a magistrate can prepare a report and recommendation which, after allowing opportunity for objections, a district judge can review" and adopt).
--------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 29, 2014
/s/_________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge