Natarajan v. Natarajan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAKESH NATARAJAN, Case No. 21-cv-08563-NC

Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE v. DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

SUBJECT MATTER

THARANI PRIYA NATARAJAN, JURISDICTION

Defendant. Re: ECF 1

On November 3, 2021, Plaintiff Rakesh Natarajan filed a complaint against Defendant Tharani Priya Natarajan. ECF 1. Plaintiff asserts two causes of action against Defendant for making false statements of material fact in documentation submitted to the government. Id. at 3. Upon reviewing the complaint, it is unclear whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute. See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004). Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed by December 2, 2021.

Plaintiff cites to four statutes in his allegations regarding his claims. Two of the statutes codify government procedures. Title 28 concerns the judiciary and its procedures, including when a signed declaration can substitute sworn oral testimony. 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Title 8 describes immigration procedures and Section 1182 describes classes of government. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(G). The remaining two statutes—18 U.S.C. § 1001 || 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); Gonzales y. Caremore Health Plan, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-01499-ODW, 2015 WL 5 || 6394467, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143958, at *5-6 (C.D. Cal. Oct 22, 2015). In other words, a private citizen, like Plaintiff, does not have the authority to sue someone under || these statutes. Because statutes do not provide private rights of action, Plaintiff cannot || show that there is an “invasion of a legally protected interest” that gives him standing to || bring these claims. See Lujan v. Def. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). If Plaintiff does not have standing, the Court does not have jurisdiction, and the complaint should be dismissed. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1.

Finally, the Court informs Plaintiff that the Federal Pro Se Program at the San Jose || 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 |} (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 |} downloadable version of the Court’s publication: Representing Yourself in Federal Court: || A Handbook for Pro Se Litigants.

In conclusion, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed by December 2, 2021. If Plaintiff does not file a response by December 2, the Court will recommend dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2021 he —> _ United States Magistrate Judge