Stuart Robinson v. Pierce Transit, 3:10-cv-05929

Robinson filed in forma pauperis and attached her original complaint.
Pierce Transit moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim.
Robinson objected to the filing timing, and the court granted IFP and then filed the complaint.
The court engaged Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdiction analysis and considered whether federal claims were proper or frivolous.
The court concluded no subject matter jurisdiction exists and dismissed federal claims with prejudice and state-law claims without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over federal claims	Robinson contends federal questions exist arising under federal law.	Pierce Transit argues the federal claims are insubstantial/frivolous and lack jurisdiction.	No federal subject matter jurisdiction; claims dismissed as frivolous.
Whether diversity or other bases authorize jurisdiction	Robinson relies on potential federal bases, if any.	No complete diversity; all parties are Washington residents; no basis for jurisdiction.	Diversity jurisdiction not present; no subject matter jurisdiction.

Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946) (immaterial/frivolous federal claims do not create jurisdiction)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (burden to plead jurisdiction; jurisdictional facts required)
Vacek v. U.S. Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 124 (9th Cir. 2006) (burden on plaintiff to establish jurisdiction; can consider extrinsic evidence)
Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358 (9th Cir. 2004) (facial vs. factual challenge to jurisdiction; extrinsic evidence may be considered)
Association of American Medical Colleges v. U.S., 217 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2000) (courts may consider matters outside the pleadings for jurisdictional questions)
Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (liability standards for local governments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Crandal v. Ball, Ball and Brosamer, Inc., 99 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 1996) (private right of action under SBA not available to individuals)