Failure to Allege a Short and Plain Statement of a Claim is Fatal to Suit
Post 5095
Even a Pro Se Plaintiff Must Allege Subject Matter Jurisdiction
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g2Wqs2-b and at https://lnkd.in/gEWNcEzw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
In Jordan C. Kimball v. State Of California, et al., No. 2:25-cv-00363-DJC-CSK, United States District Court, E.D. California (May 27, 2025) Plaintiff Jordan C. Kimball acting as his own lawyer seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, and the Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.
THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants State of California and Sacramento District Attorney’s Office. Plaintiff states the basis for jurisdiction is federal question based on the multiple federal statutes. Plaintiff alleges that from August 29, 2017 to January 15, 2025, he has been “subjected to police brutality and obstruction of justice, including but not limited to suppression of evidence, wrongful denial of Plaintiff’s claims and intentional misconduct by law enforcement and prosecuting authorities.” Plaintiff seeks $60 million in damages and “demands the initiation of criminal proceedings against the individuals [for] conspiracy, fraud and attempted murder.”
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis statute. Nonetheless, a party seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.
Plaintiff has made the required showing. The Magistrate recommended that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied because the action is facially frivolous and without merit because it fails to state a claim and lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Because it appears from the face of the Complaint that this action is frivolous.
DISCUSSION
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may hear only those cases authorized by federal law. Without jurisdiction, the district court cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief and must dismiss the case. A federal court’s jurisdiction may be established in one of two ways: actions arising under federal law or those between citizens of different states in which the alleged damages exceed $75,000.
The Complaint fails to establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Complaint states no basis for federal court jurisdiction, and none is apparent. In light of the recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court recommends declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim alleged under California Civil Procedure §§ 377.60 and 377.62 for wrongful death. A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a claim that provides subject matter jurisdiction because it does not give fair notice and state the elements of a claim plainly and succinctly.
Leave to Amend
In considering whether leave to amend should be granted, the Court finds that the Complaint is without merit because it fails to state a claim and lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the findings above, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED;
2. Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED without leave to amend; and
3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case.
ZALMA OPINION
Courts usually bend over backwards to help a pro se plaintiff to avail himself of the court’s process, but their kindness is not without limit. The allegations were found by the Magistrate to be frivolous and that failure defeated the claim for failure to allege subject matter jurisdiction to the court.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
