Perrone v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Frank A. Perrone, No. CV-20-00482-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant.

15 The Court has an independent obligation to determine whether it has subject- matter jurisdiction. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999).

17 Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”

20 Plaintiff failed to indicate in his complaint the basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.

21 Plaintiff must amend his complaint to correct this deficiency.1 See NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 612 (9th Cir. 2016).

23 Accordingly, 24 IT IS ORDERED that by April 9, 2020, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint properly alleging subject-matter jurisdiction.

26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to timely file an amended This amended complaint pursuant to court order will not affect Plaintiff’s right under Rule 15(a)(1) to later amend once as a matter of course, if she chooses to do so. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1006-09 (9th Cir. 2015). complaint, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss this case, without prejudice, for lack of 2|| subject-matter jurisdiction.

3 Dated this 26th day of March, 2020.

5 _ 7 United States District Judge _2-