(PS) Tackitt v. Tackitt

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONIQUE ALISSA-JOY TACKITT, No. 2:25-cv-3145 DC AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ROBERT TACKITT and CEDRIC TACKITT, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On October 30, 2025, plaintiff filed this action in pro se and paid the filing fee. ECF No. 19 1. The case was accordingly referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). The 20 undersigned reviewed the complaint and, believing that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 21 to hear plaintiff’s case, issued an Order to Show Cause requiring that plaintiff respond and 22 demonstrate that federal jurisdiction exists. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff did not respond. Because it is 23 clear from the complaint that federal jurisdiction does not exist, the undersigned recommends that 24 this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 25 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 26 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, (1994). In 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a), “Congress granted federal 27 courts jurisdiction over two general types of cases: cases that “aris[e] under” federal law, § 1331, 28 and cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000 and there is diversity of 1 citizenship among the parties, § 1332(a). These jurisdictional grants are known as “federal- 2 question jurisdiction” and “diversity jurisdiction,” respectively. Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. 3 Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019), reh’g denied, No. 17-1471, 2019 WL 3538074 (U.S. Aug. 4 5, 2019). A case “arises under” federal law for jurisdictional purposes either where federal law 5 creates the cause of action or “where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] 6 on some construction of federal law.” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 7 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 8 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)). “[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed 9 by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a 10 federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id. at 11 1089 (quoting Rivet v. Regions Bank, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998)). 12 The complaint asserts federal question jurisdiction, alleging that the basis for such 13 jurisdiction is “domestic violence.” ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff’s entire statement of her claim 14 reads “Monique Tackitt is being harassed and physically abused by her violent & mentally 15 unstable family. Need protection and a move-out order.” ECF No. 1 at 5. A case “arises under” 16 federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or “where the vindication of a 17 right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.” Republican Party 18 of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. 19 Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)). “[T]he presence or absence of 20 federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides 21 that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 22 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id. at 1089 (quoting Rivet v. Regions Bank, 522 U.S. 23 470, 475 (1998)). The complaint specifies no cause of action that is based on a federal statute or 24 federal right. 25 Plaintiff’s allegations do not support any basis for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff and both 26 defendants are residents of California. ECF No. 1 at 2. As noted, her allegations involve matters 27 that are not governed by federal law. “Domestic violence” and family relations are matters of 28 state law. See In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-594 (1890) (domestic and family relations are 1 || governed by state, not federal, law); Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir. 1983) 2 || (same). In sum, this is not the type of case that can be handled in federal court. Without a claim 3 || that a federal law or right has been violated, there is no jurisdiction. Domestic violence cases and 4 || orders of protection are matters for the state courts. Plaintiff was given an opportunity to identify 5 || a basis for federal jurisdiction, and she has not done so. 6 Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any basis for this court’s jurisdiction, and the 7 || undersigned finds none. Thus, it is RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without 8 | prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and that this case be closed. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a 13 || document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 14 || Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 15 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 16 | v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 | DATED: December 9, 2025 . . 18 Cette —Clhare_ 19 ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28