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.
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
