1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARINA MALDONADO, Case No.: 24-cv-0083-WQH-SBC

Plaintiff, 12 ORDER v. 13 14 VICTOR MANUEL ROBLES CHA, 15 Defendant. 16 HAYES, Judge: 17 On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a 18 Complaint against Defendant Victor Manuel Robles Cha. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff also filed 19 a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis pursuant to

(a) (ECF No. 2) and 20 a Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3). 21 The Complaint alleges that Defendant “illegally kept all the stimulus money, after 22 so many times he denied it.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “has kept 23 all the stimulus money and EBT pandemic cards for our children and he is refusing to give 24 me my (50%) share for the children.”

Plaintiff alleges that the first stimulus round was 25 “$500 per child totaling $1000,” and 50% of that total would be $500.

Plaintiff alleges 26 the second stimulus round was “$600 per child plus $500 (Golden State) totaling 27 $2200,00,” and 50% of that total would be $1100.

Plaintiff alleges that the third stimulus 28 1 round was “$1400 per child plus $600 (Golden State) totaling $4000,” and 50% of that 2 total would be $2,000.

Plaintiff alleges that “Pandemic EBT per child 1st round $592.00 3 per child totaling $1184,” and 50% of that total would be $592.

Plaintiff alleges that 4 “Pandemic EBT per child 1st round $382.00 per child totaling $764.00,” and 50% of that 5 total would be $382.00.

Plaintiff alleges that “Pandemic EBT per child 1st round 6 $375.00 per child totaling $750.00,” and 50% of that total would be $375.00.

Plaintiff 7 alleges that the grand total combined is $4949.00.

8 Plaintiff alleges that on May 5, 2022, Judge Tim Nader in Department 6 in San Diego 9 Superior Court case number 18FL01269S “transferred this case to San Diego County Child 10 Support Division.”

Plaintiff alleges that on July 7, 2022, Judge Lizbet Munoz in 11 Department 802 in “San Diego Superior Court-DCSS case number DF086943, stated is 12 was a federal issue.”

Plaintiff alleges that on November 30, 2023, Judge Ernest M. 13 Gross in Department C-63 in “San Diego Superior Court case number 23SC00732C – 14 Small Claims Division does not believe he has jurisdiction advised to open a federal case.” 15

16 Plaintiff requests the following relief: the $4949.00 in “gift food card from 17 Food4Less, Ralph’s, or VONS.”

. 18 The Civil Cover Sheet filed with the Complaint states that the basis of jurisdiction 19 is “U.S. Government Plaintiff,” Plaintiff’s county of residence is San Diego, and 20 Defendant’s county of residence is San Diego. (ECF No. 1-1.) The Complaint is otherwise 21 silent as to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 22 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” that “possess only that power 23 authorized” by the United States Constitution and federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 24 Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994). Accordingly, federal courts “have an 25 independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the 26 absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

(2006); 27 see also Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.,

(1999) (“Article III generally 28 requires a federal court to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before it 1 considers the merits of a case.”). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject- 2 matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The burden 3 of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction “rests on the party asserting jurisdiction.” 4 Kokkonen,

. 5 In the federal courts, subject matter jurisdiction may arise from either “federal 6 question jurisdiction” or “diversity jurisdiction.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

386, 392 (1987); see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331–32. To invoke federal question jurisdiction, 8 the action must “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28

. For an action to “arise under” federal law, “[a] right or immunity created 10 by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, 11 of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Construction 12 Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal.,

(1983) (quoting Gully v. First Nat’l 13 Bank,

(1936)). To invoke diversity jurisdiction, the complaint must 14 allege that “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of 15 interest and costs, and is between ... citizens of different States ... [or] citizens of a State 16 and citizens or subjects of a foreign state....”

(a). 17 Here, Plaintiff states that the basis of jurisdiction is a U.S. Government plaintiff. 18 (See ECF No. 1-1.) Based upon the Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff is an individual 19 suing in her individual capacity. (See ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff does not allege any U.S. 20 Government connection. Additionally, the Complaint contains no reference to federal law 21 and no indication that “[a] right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the 22 United States [is] an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” 23 Franchise Tax Bd.,

(quoting Gully,

). Indeed, the Complaint 24 contains no reference to any cause of action or violation of a law to allow the Court to 25 determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. To the extent that Plaintiff intended 26 the alleged statements from the named judges to indicate this Court has jurisdiction, this 27 Court is only permitted to exercise jurisdiction in the types of cases authorized by the 28 Constitution and federal law, and Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing this Court’s 1 |/jurisdiction in the Complaint. See Kokkonen,

. In the event that Plaintiff 2 intended to invoke diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff states that her county of residence is San 3 || Diego, California, and Defendant’s county of residence is also San Diego, California. (ECF 4 ||No. 1-1.) Based upon the Civil Cover Sheet, the parties are not diverse. Accordingly, it 5 appears that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the action 6 || does not “arise under” federal law and the parties lack diversity. 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Marina Maldonado is ORDERED TO 8 ||SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter 9 jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order within twenty-one (21) days of the 10 this Order is filed. If Plaintiff fails to timely demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction, 11 Court will order that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 12 Dated: January 22, 2024 BME: ie Z. Ma 13 Hon. William Q. Hayes 14 United States District Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28