1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RANDY DEWAYNE PITTMAN, Case No. 22-cv-05000-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 WELLS FARGO, N.A., et al., Defendants. 11

12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff, an inmate in the Santa Clara County Jail proceeding pro se, filed this pro se civil 14 complaint against a bank and credit card company. He is granted leave to proceed in forma 15 pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the case is DISMISSED for failure 16 to state a cognizable claim for relief. 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 20 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 21 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 23 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't,

(9th 24 Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the 26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the 27 statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon ] in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's 2 || obligation to provide the 'grounds of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and 3 conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.... 4 || Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell 5 || Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint 6 || must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Jd. at 1974. 7 DISCUSSION 8 Plaintiff makes various claims that Defendants breached their contract with him. He 9 || makes no claim for the violation of federal law. Plaintiff and Defendants all reside in California 10 || (the addresses he provides for Defendants are in California). Consequently, this Court has neither | 11 federal question jurisdiction, see

, nor diversity jurisdiction, see

1332, over Plaintiff's claims. This case must be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing E 13 his claims in a court of competent jurisdiction. CONCLUSION 3 15 For the foregoing reasons, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject 16 || matter jurisdiction. i 17 The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: January 3, 2023 _ bun / TEFEN $. WATE Unitdd States Vistrict Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28