1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COURTNEY J. BUCKNER, et al., No. 2:23-CV-1579-DAD-DMC-P 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ASHLEY TAYLOR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs, who are proceeding pro se, bring this civil action. Pending before the 18 Court is Plaintiffs’ original complaint, ECF No. 1. 19 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by litigants who, as here, have 20 been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See

(e)(2). Under this 21 screening provision, the Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See

(e)(2)(A), (B). 24 Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), this Court must dismiss an 25 action if the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), 26 the Court will also consider as a threshold matter whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Plaintiffs in this case are Courtney and Sylvia Buckner. See ECF No. 1. Courtney 2 Buckner is an inmate at the Rio Consumnes Correctional Center in Elk Grove, California. See

3 d at 2. Plaintiff Sylvia Buckner is not incarcerated and lives in Sacramento, California. See

4 Plaintiffs name as defendants the Amber Grove Apartments and the apartment manager, Ashley 5 Taylor. See

Both defendants are alleged to be California residents. See

On the form 6 complaint, Plaintiffs check the boxes alleging both federal question and diversity jurisdiction. 7 See

. Plaintiffs do not, however, indicate the federal statute or constitutional provision 8 which would support federal question jurisdiction. See

. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant 9 Taylor was negligent in her responsibilities as apartment manager and that this negligence 10 resulted in a stove fire breaking out in their apartment. See

. 11 The Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Under

, 12 the district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, 13 laws, or treaties of the United States. Here, Plaintiffs have not identified any Constitutional 14 provision, law, or treaty of the United States which supports their claim, which arises under state 15 law relating to landlords and tenants. Under

, the district courts have original 16 jurisdiction in civil actions involving citizens of different states. Here, Plaintiffs allege that all 17 parties are citizens of California. Because the case does not involve diverse parties, diversity 18 jurisdiction does not exist. 19 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 20 cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of 21 the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / ] Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed 2 || for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 4 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within 14 days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 6 || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 7 || Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 8 | Ylst,

(9th Cir. 1991). 9 10 | Dated: August 25, 2023 Ss..c0_, M DENNIS M. COTA 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28