1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 RAKESH NATARAJAN, Case No. 21-cv-08563-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE v. DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 13 SUBJECT MATTER THARANI PRIYA NATARAJAN, JURISDICTION 14 Defendant. Re: ECF 1 15 16 17 On November 3, 2021, Plaintiff Rakesh Natarajan filed a complaint against 18 Defendant Tharani Priya Natarajan. ECF 1. Plaintiff asserts two causes of action against 19 Defendant for making false statements of material fact in documentation submitted to the 20 government. Id. at 3. Upon reviewing the complaint, it is unclear whether the Court has 21 subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute. See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, 22 L.P.,

(2004). Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in 23 writing why this case should not be dismissed by December 2, 2021. 24 Plaintiff cites to four statutes in his allegations regarding his claims. Two of the 25 statutes codify government procedures. Title 28 concerns the judiciary and its procedures, 26 including when a signed declaration can substitute sworn oral testimony. 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1746. Title 8 describes immigration procedures and Section 1182 describes classes of 1 government.

(a)(6)(C)(G). The remaining two statutes—18 U.S.C. § 1001 2 || and 18 U.S.C. § 1546—discuss penalties but do not provide private rights of action. 3 || Willems vy. Apt. Inv. & Mgmt. Co. AIMCO, 72 Fed. App’x 700, 700 (9th Cir. 2003); 4 Gonzales y. Caremore Health Plan, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-01499-ODW,

|| 6394467,

, at *5-6 (C.D. Cal. Oct 22, 2015). In other 6 words, a private citizen, like Plaintiff, does not have the authority to sue someone under 7 || these statutes. Because statutes do not provide private rights of action, Plaintiff cannot 8 || show that there is an “invasion of a legally protected interest” that gives him standing to 9 || bring these claims. See Lujan v. Def. of Wildlife,

(1992). If Plaintiff 10 || does not have standing, the Court does not have jurisdiction, and the complaint should be 11 dismissed. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. 12 Finally, the Court informs Plaintiff that the Federal Pro Se Program at the San Jose 13 || Courthouse provides free information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in C 14 || federal civil cases. The Federal Pro Se Program is available by phone appointment at 3 15 |} (408) 297-1480. There are also online resources available on the Court’s webpage. The 16 Pro Se Handbook, found at: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/, has a 5 17 |} downloadable version of the Court’s publication: Representing Yourself in Federal Court: 5 18 || A Handbook for Pro Se Litigants. 19 In conclusion, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this case 20 || should not be dismissed by December 2, 2021. If Plaintiff does not file a response by 21 || December 2, the Court will recommend dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject 22 || matter jurisdiction. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 || Dated: November 4, 2021 he —> _ 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28