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.