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 ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
