1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA DANIELSEN, Case No.: 23cv1936-LL-DEB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 MICHAEL SOLIZ, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Maria Danielsen (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Michael 18 Soliz (“Defendant”). ECF No. 1. The Complaint is very brief and lists a claim for “Trespass 19 [forgery] administrating property without right.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges Defendant 20 trespassed on her property and “uttered a forged instrument” that interfered with Plaintiff’s 21 property. Id. Plaintiff provides no detail as to why subject matter jurisdiction is proper in 22 this case. On November 3, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why subject 23 matter jurisdiction is proper and why the Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to 24 state a claim. ECF No. 4. On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a response. ECF No. 5, 25 Response to Order to Show Cause (“Resp.”). 26 I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 27 A court has an independent obligation to dismiss an action if it determines at any 28 time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The two basic 1 statutory grants of subject matter jurisdiction to federal courts are found in

1331 and 1332. Section 1331 provides for “federal question” jurisdiction and is invoked 3 when the plaintiff pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the 4 United States. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

(2006). Section 1332 provides 5 for “diversity jurisdiction” and is invoked when the plaintiff “presents a claim between 6 parties of diverse citizenship that exceeds the required jurisdiction amount, currently 7 $75,000.”

8 Plaintiff states in her Response that “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction is proper because 9 both prosecutor/Plaintiff and wrongdoer/defendant are U.S. citizens and the amount in 10 controversy is $300,000.00.” Resp. at 1. However, the Complaint does not present a federal 11 question. Additionally, the Complaint does not present diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff 12 states the amount in controversy is $300,000.00, but Plaintiff does not state parties of 13 diverse citizenship. See Arbaugh,

;

. Therefore, Plaintiff 14 fails to sufficiently establish subject matter jurisdiction. 15 II. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 16 The Court “may act on its own initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint and 17 dismiss it for failure to state a claim” after first “giv[ing] notice of its sua sponte intention 18 to invoke Rule 12(b)(6) and afford[ing] plaintiffs ‘an opportunity to at least submit a 19 written memorandum in opposition to such motion.’” Wong v. Bell,

, 361–62 20 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Crawford v. Bell,

(9th Cir. 1979)); see also Omar 21 v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc.,

, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may dismiss a 22 claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)”). In addition, conclusory statements that 23 merely recite the elements of a claim are insufficient for the purpose of 12(b)(6). See 24 Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause 25 of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”); Bell Atlantic Corp. 26 v. Twombly,

(2007) (“[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' 27 of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 28 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do”). 1 The entirety of Plaintiff's Complaint is three bullet points which state: (1) 2 ||“wrongdoer trespass upon property; (2) “wrongdoer uttered a forged instrument that 3 ||interfered with [Plaintiff's] right to property”; and (3) “[t]he wrong, harm and trespass 4 ||continues to this day.” ECF No. 1 at 1, Complaint. In her Response, Plaintiff states that the 5 || Court should not dismiss her claim due to the wrongdoer placing “a lien against [Plaintiff's] 6 || property claiming a debt is owed and threatening to foreclose and sell [her] home.” /d. 7 || Plaintiff's Complaint and Response are nothing more than recitations of vague elements 8 conclusory statements, with no supporting facts or allegations. Further, □□□□□□□□□□□ 9 ||Complaint is extremely brief and does not contain sufficient factual matter, and therefore 10 || fails to state a claim to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Fed. R. 11 Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 12 CONCLUSION 13 Given Plaintiffs inadequate response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, the Court 14 || DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs Complaint. However, given Plaintiff’ s 15 || pro se status, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies noted 16 }/in this Order by February 22, 2024. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an amended 17 ||}complaint by this date may result in Plaintiffs case being dismissed for failure to prosecute. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ||Dated: January 23, 2024 NO 20 DE | 1 Honorable Linda Lopez 9 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28