Opinion
1:23-cv-00416-ADA-CDB
04-04-2023
RANDEEP SINGH DHILLON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM EDWARDS, et al.,Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF No. 1)
On March 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Eastern District of California alleging subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1346(b)(1). (ECF No. 1 at 5.) The Court has a sua sponte duty to confirm that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the cases on its docket. See Allen v. Santa Clara Cnty. Corr. Peace Officers Ass'n, 400 F.Supp.3d 998, 1001 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)).
It appears that Plaintiffs assert federal question jurisdiction by alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. (See ECF No. 1 at 16-17, 20-21.) The Fourteenth Amendment, however, does not itself provide for a private right of action; Plaintiffs must point to an appropriate statute that does. See Azul-Pacifico, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 973 F.2d 704, 705 (9th Cir. 1992); MetroPCS Inc. v. City and Cnty. of S.F., No. C02-3442 PJH, 2005 WL 1692631, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2005). If Plaintiffs intend to invoke 42 U.S.C. § 1983, they must allege state action, something that is not apparent on the face of the complaint as filed. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Garnier v. O'Connor-Ratcliff, 41 F.4th 1158, 1169 (9th Cir. 2022). If Plaintiffs intend to invoke a different statute, they must identify it as this responsibility is not one that the Court will assume.
Accordingly, if Plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint asserting the basis for subject matter jurisdiction in federal court no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of signature on this order, the Court will dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.