Opinion
23-cv-05504-LJC
03-22-2024
ARCELIO JOSEPH REYBOL, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 7
LISA J. CISNEROS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only hear cases falling within their subject matter jurisdiction. Courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists”. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h).
No basis for subject-matter jurisdiction is apparent from the face of Plaintiff Arcelio Reybol's Complaint (ECF No. 1), and after a case management conference on January 25, 2024 where Reybol failed to articulate any claim falling within this Court's jurisdiction, the Court previously ordered to Reybol (who is proceeding without an attorney) to show cause why this case should not be dismissed sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 7. That Order to Show Cause set a deadline of February 23, 2024 for Reybol to file either an amended complaint or a response arguing why his current Complaint is sufficient. Id. at 6.
On February 2, 2024, Reybol filed a document captioned “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 7(a): Answer,” attaching miscellaneous pages, some of which are other previous filings in this case. ECF No. 8. Nothing in that document addresses subject matter jurisdiction, indicates that it is intended as a response to the Order to Show Cause, or otherwise shows that the case falls within this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that this case be DISMISSED sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the reasons stated in section III of the January 26, 2024 Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 7 at 2-6), without leave to amend but without prejudice to any claim that Reybol might assert in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Because not all parties have appeared and consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), this case will be reassigned to a United States district judge for all further proceedings, including action on this recommendation for dismissal. Reybol may file an objection to this recommendation no later than April 1, 2024. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d); 72(b)(2).