Ashford v. Woo
3:17-cv-01742
S.D. Cal.Sep 14, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Burk N. Ashford, a pro se incarcerated California resident, filed suit alleging a state-law tort (replevin by detinue) against Eugene Woo and Jean Shiomoto/DMV.
- Ashford moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and submitted an affidavit showing lack of assets and incarceration.
- The Court first considered the IFP motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
- The Court then reviewed sua sponte whether it had federal subject matter jurisdiction before reaching the merits.
- The complaint alleged denial of Fourteenth Amendment due process but did not sue the Superior Court or allege facts tying the named defendants to that alleged denial.
- Defendant’s separate motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was pending but rendered moot by the Court’s jurisdictional ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff qualifies for IFP | Ashford asserts inability to pay filing fee (unemployed, no assets, incarcerated) | No dispute presented contesting indigence | Court granted IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) |
| Whether federal subject matter jurisdiction exists (diversity) | Complaint alleges a tort in Escondido, CA but does not plead diverse citizenship | Defendants are California citizens; no diversity alleged | No diversity jurisdiction; complaint fails to plead diversity |
| Whether federal question jurisdiction exists (Section 1983 / Due Process) | Ashford claims denial of Fourteenth Amendment due process by state court actions | Defendants are not the state court; facts do not show defendants caused any constitutional deprivation | No colorable § 1983 federal question; claim is insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction |
| Result of jurisdictional defect | N/A | N/A | Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed defendant’s pending jurisdictional motion as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environ., 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (federal courts must confirm subject matter jurisdiction before reaching merits)
- Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (courts must inquire sua sponte into jurisdictional doubts)
- Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989) (federal courts have limited jurisdiction defined by Constitution and Congress)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proof)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (facially insubstantial federal claims may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction)
- Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 1999) (IFP standards and filing fee requirements)
- Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1984) (district court first decides IFP on financial basis then reviews merits under § 1915(e)(2))