From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Lafitte

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 3, 2021
21-mc-80266-SK (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2021)

Opinion

21-mc-80266-SK

12-03-2021

JEREMY LAFITTE, Petitioner.


ORDER REASSIGNING CASE AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL

REGARDING DOCKET NO. 5

SALLIE KIM, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On November 12, 2021, Petitioner Jeremy Lafitte (“Petitioner”) filed a “Petition in Rem” in this miscellaneous matter. (Dkt. 1.) On November 16, 2021, Petitioner filed an “Emergency Motion for Issuance of a Warrant in Rem” in association with his initial petition. (Dkt. 2.) Both documents reference maritime law as the basis for a seizure of property. (Dkts. 1, 2.) However, neither document describes any facts that would place maritime law at issue; the only property described is a sum of money Petitioner alleges he is owed. (Id.) On November 17, 2021, the Court issued a Screening Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) construing Plaintiff's filings as a civil complaint and allowing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint addressing deficiencies in the filings, including providing a basis for the Court's jurisdiction. (Dkt. 3.) The Court also ordered that the case be reclassified as a civil action and explained that maritime law was inapposite. (Id.)

On December 2, 2021, rather than filing an amended complaint, Petitioner filed what he styles an objection to the Screening Order, wherein he disagrees that the matter should be classified as a civil case, disagrees that the matter does not fall under principles of maritime law, states that he believes no evidence of either diversity or federal question jurisdiction exists, and states that he should not be required to state any further facts in support of the applicability of maritime law. (Dkt. 5.) As discussed in the Court's Screening Order, none of Petitioner's filings contain any facts supporting the applicability of maritime law, and Petitioner has failed to otherwise demonstrate the existence of federal question or diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Court has jurisdiction over this action. The Court HEREBY ORDERS that this matter be reassigned to a District Judge and RECOMMENDS that the case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

In re Lafitte

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 3, 2021
21-mc-80266-SK (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2021)
Case details for

In re Lafitte

Case Details

Full title:JEREMY LAFITTE, Petitioner.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Dec 3, 2021

Citations

21-mc-80266-SK (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2021)