1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID NICHOLSON, Case No. 22-cv-05368-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v.

10 CHIME BANKING, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate housed at Jackson Correctional Institution, in Malone, Florida, has 14 filed this pro se action against Chime Banking. His complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is now before the 15 Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma 16 pauperis in a separate order. 17 DISCUSSION 18 A. Standard of Review 19 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 22 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 24 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi,

989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 27 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 1 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (citations omitted). 2 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 3 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

, 677–78 (2009). 4 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 5 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice.

6 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 7 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 8 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 9 Atkins,

(1988). 10 B. Complaint 11 The complaint makes the following allegations. In or about May or June 2020, Plaintiff 12 opened an account with Chime Banking via its online platform. In December 2020, Chime sent an 13 email to customers regarding its policy on closed accounts. The email stated that all funds in 14 closed accounts would be forwarded by mail. At the time his account was closed, Plaintiff had 15 $3,000 left in the account. Plaintiff has yet to receive the $3,000 remaining in his account. 16 Plaintiff now resides in Florida. 17 Plaintiff specifies that he is bringing a suit “pursuant to California law for civil action.” 18 Dkt. No. 1 at 1. He argues that the Court has jurisdiction because the events took place in San 19 Francisco.

20 C. Dismissal Without Leave to Amend 21 The Court DISMISSES this action without leave to amend for lack of federal jurisdiction. 22 This district may be the proper venue for this action if inter alia the relevant events took place 23 here. See

(b) (venue for civil action is proper in judicial district in which 24 substantial part of events or omissions giving rise to claim occurred). However, for a case to be 25 heard in any federal court, the plaintiff must first establish federal jurisdiction. Federal courts are 26 courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

, 377 27 (1994). Generally, federal subject matter jurisdiction exists due to the presence of a federal 1 Plaintiff does not allege a federal question and has specified that he is seeking relief pursuant to 2 || California law. In cases arising out of diversity jurisdiction, such as the present case, district 3 courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the 4 sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different 5 States.”

(a)(1). The party seeking to prove federal jurisdiction bears the burden 6 of establishing it. See, e.g., McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Indiana,

, 7 189 (1936) ( “the party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor . . . must allege in his 8 || pleading the facts essential to show Jurisdiction”). Here, diversity jurisdiction is lack because the 9 amount in controversy is $3,000.00, far below the $75,000 requirement. 10 This action is dismissed for lack of federal question jurisdiction. The dismissal is without 11 leave to amend because amendment would be futile. Leadsinger, Inc. vy. BMG Music Pub., 512

, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (futility of amendment is basis for denial of leave to amend). 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action without leave to amend. The 3 15 Clerk shall terminate all pending motions as moot, enter judgment in favor of Defendant and a 16 against Plaintiff, and close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. |) Dated: 172772023 ! | | 19 4 . ‘ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28