Sobayo v. Ally Bank

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NATHANIEL BASOLA SOBAYO, Case No. 20-cv-08470-SI 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IFP AND 9 v. DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 ALLY BANK, et al., Dkt. No. 2, 8 11 Defendants.

13 On November 25, 2020, plaintiff filed the instant action seeking damages from defendants who allegedly stole or wrongfully repossessed plaintiff’s 2011 black Cadillac Escalade. Dkt. No. 1 at 31. Plaintiff alleges he is entitled to $100,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000,000 in punitive damages. Dkt. No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 2. Plaintiff is not currently employed, though he does receive social security and is eligible for COVID-19 relief. Id. However, these amounts barely cover plaintiff’s monthly rent and other living expenses. The Court therefore GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

21 However, in an action in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, a district court may screen the complaint to fulfill its duty under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires the court to dismiss a case if the court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

1 Plaintiff's complaint fails to state any causes of action. Further, the complaint fails to || establish subject matter jurisdiction. Generally, a federal district court will have subject matter || jurisdiction two instances: (1) cases involving federal subject matter (causes of action brought under || federal law) or (2) diversity matters where the plaintiff and all defendants are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. $$ 1331 (Federal Question Jurisdiction) and 1332 (Diversity of Citizenship).

6 || The plaintiff and at least some defendants appear to be California residents. Further, while plaintiff does not explicitly state causes of action, the allegations regarding “conversion” of □□□□□□□□□□□ Cadillac should be brought under California state law. Therefore, plaintiff has not established subject matter jurisdiction under $1331 (Federal Question Jurisdiction) or $1332 (Diversity of || Citizenship).

11 For these reasons, the Court hereby DISMISSES the complaint WITHOUT prejudice.

12 || Plaintiff may file an amended complaint addressing the issues of (1) failure to state causes of action 13 and (2) jurisdiction on or before February 1, 2020. If an amended complaint is not filed, the action || will be dismissed WITH prejudice.

3 15 Further, the motion to dismiss filed by defendants is hereby taken off calendar as MOOT. a 16 See Dkt. No. 8 (motion to dismiss).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 || Dated: January 4, 2021 Site WU tee SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge