Case Information
*1 Case 3:25-cv-00869-CAB-AHG Document 4 Filed 04/14/25 PageID.19 Page 1 of 2
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IMAD HASSAN, Case No.: 3:25-cv-0869-CAB-AHG Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT v. [Doc. No. 1] ANNETE BAXTER, Defendants.
Plaintiff has filed a nearly blank complaint which does not give any notice of the claims at issue against Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. As it relates to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), “subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court’s power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived.” United States v. Cotton , 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). This threshold requirement “‘spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States’ and is ‘inflexible and without exception.’” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t , 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998) (quoting Mansfield, C. & L.M. Ry. Co. v. Swan , 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884). As such, the Court can dismiss a case on subject matter-jurisdiction grounds sua sponte. Snell v. Cleveland, Inc. , 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002). [1] 3:25-cv-0869-CAB-AHG *2 Case 3:25-cv-00869-CAB-AHG Document 4 Filed 04/14/25 PageID.20 Page 2 of 2 1 The complaint does not satisfy jurisdiction either through a proper federal question or through diversity. The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by May 2, 2025. Dated: April 14, 2025 [2] 3:25-cv-0869-CAB-AHG