Opinion
22-cv-05000-JSW
01-03-2023
RANDY DEWAYNE PITTMAN, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO, N.A., et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
JEFFREY S. WHITE, United States District Judge
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, an inmate in the Santa Clara County Jail proceeding pro se, filed this pro se civil complaint against a bank and credit card company. He is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the case is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the ....claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.... Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff makes various claims that Defendants breached their contract with him. He makes no claim for the violation of federal law. Plaintiff and Defendants all reside in California (the addresses he provides for Defendants are in California). Consequently, this Court has neither federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, over Plaintiff's claims. This case must be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing his claims in a court of competent jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.