United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ALLAL K. AMRANI, et al., Plaintiffs,
U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff
Allal Amrani has been granted in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) status in this matter and is proceeding
pro se. Dkt. #3. On several occasions, the Court has
expressed concern over whether this matter is within the
Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Dkts. #14 and #38.
Several defendants have also questioned whether this Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Dkt. #27 at 6-7. Accordingly,
the Court orders the parties to show cause why this case
falls within the Court's subject matter jurisdiction.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and a plaintiff
bears the burden of establishing that a case is properly
filed in federal court. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); In re Ford Motor
Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 957
(9th Cir. 2001). This burden, at the pleading stage, must be
met by pleading sufficient allegations to show a proper basis
for the federal court to assert subject matter jurisdiction
over the action. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance
Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936). A plaintiff may
establish either federal question jurisdiction or diversity
jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction is
established by pleading a “colorable claim
‘rising under' the Constitution or laws of the
United States.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546
U.S. 500, 513 (2006) (citations omitted); 28 U.S.C. §
subject matter jurisdiction is paramount. Valdez v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004).
“When a requirement goes to subject-matter
jurisdiction, courts are obligated to consider sua
sponte issues that the parties have disclaimed or have
not presented [as] . . . [s]ubject-matter jurisdiction can
never be waived or forfeited.” Gonzalez v.
Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012). To this end, Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12 requires that “[i]f the
court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Similarly, where a plaintiff is
proceeding IFP, a court will dismiss a complaint at any time
if the action fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or
malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §
Court has previously noted, Plaintiff has not established
that he validly raises a federal question. Dkt. #14 at 7.
Accordingly, the Court finds and ORDERS:
1. That each party shall file a short and plain statement,
not to exceed six (6) double-spaced
pages, explaining whether this Court does or
does not have subject matter jurisdiction. This should
a. Identification of the laws or statutes giving rise to
federal question jurisdiction, if any;
b. Analysis of whether Plaintiff has standing to assert those
c. How a defendant violated the laws or statutes giving rise
to federal question jurisdiction; and
d. Analysis of whether those claims are barred by the
2. Responses are due no later than twenty-one
(21) days from the date of this Order.
3. The Court will take no further action in this case until
responses are filed.
4. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to file a response
will result in ...