1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IMAD HASSAN, Case No.: 3:25-cv-0869-CAB-AHG

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 13 v. [Doc. No. 1] 14 ANNETE BAXTER,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a nearly blank complaint which does not give any notice of the 18 claims at issue against Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 19 As it relates to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), “subject-matter jurisdiction, because it 20 involves a court’s power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived.” United States 21 v. Cotton,

(2002). This threshold requirement “‘spring[s] from the 22 nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States’ and is ‘inflexible and without 23 exception.’” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,

, 94–95 (1998) (quoting 24 Mansfield, C. & L.M. Ry. Co. v. Swan,

(1884). As such, the Court can 25 dismiss a case on subject matter-jurisdiction grounds sua sponte. Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 26

(9th Cir. 2002). 27 28 1 The complaint does not satisfy jurisdiction either through a proper federal question 2 ||or through diversity. The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. 3 || The complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by May 2, 2025. 4

6 Dated: April 14, 2025 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28