Martin v. Khan et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03407

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 9/3/15.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 YOHANIA MARTIN, 7 Case No. 15-cv-03407-YGR Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 RUBINA KHAN, ET AL., 10 Defendants. 11 12 On July 30, 2015, the Court issued an Order Denying Plaintiff Yohania Martin's Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing the Complaint Without Prejudice. 14 (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff was given until August 28, 2015 to file an amended complaint and a 15 renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id. at 3.) 16 Despite the filing of a largely unintelligible document entitled "Plaintiff Asking the Court 17 of [sic] Consider Facts Poverty and Allow Complaint" (Dkt. No. 7) and a document entitled 18 "Amended Complaint" (Dkt. No. 8), along with a renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis and accompanying affidavit (Dkt. Nos. 9-10), the Court still cannot determine the 20 essential elements of any cognizable federal claim (i.e., a legal theory upon which relief can be 21 granted). Plaintiff appears to suggest that she did not pursue the matter in state court because she 22 sought relief from a "higher court." As previously indicated, federal courts are courts of limited 23 jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 6 at 1-2.) Plaintiff has not identified any claim which would give rise to 24 federal jurisdiction, nor does one appear feasible in light of the circumstances alleged. Neither 25 does plaintiff present an alternative basis for federal jurisdiction. State law disputes between 26 citizens of the same state—in this case, apparently California—are typically resolved by the state's 27 trial and appellate courts, not federal courts. Accordingly, the amended complaint is DISMISSED 28 on the same grounds as detailed in the Court's July 30, 2015 Order (Dkt. No. 6) as to the initial 1 complaint. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: September 3, 2015 4 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2