Larsen-Orta v. Contra Costa County Human Services Department
- 3:25-cv-02027
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Larsen-Orta v. Contra Costa County Human Services Department, the court granted fee-waiver status and recommended dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Ragni Larsen-Orta’s federal case was reassigned, and dismissal without prejudice was recommended because the complaint did not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction; her fee-waiver application was granted.
What happened
In Larsen-Orta v. Contra Costa County Human Services Department, Ragni Larsen-Orta asked to proceed without paying the filing fee and challenged an unfavorable California health-care administrative decision. The decision concerned medical care that she said would be denied beginning March 1, 2025.
The court granted her application to proceed without paying the filing fee. It concluded that the complaint did not establish federal jurisdiction because the alleged constitutional violations did not turn the state administrative appeal into a federal case, and the complaint could not be amended to establish federal jurisdiction.
The court reassigned the case to a district judge and recommended dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The report and recommendation was issued by the court; the signed judge’s name is not legible in the provided opinion text. Parties may object within 14 days after being served.
The detailed version
- Larsen-Orta v. Contra Costa County Human Services Department · No. 3:25-cv-02027
- Mar. 12, 2025
Background
Ragni Larsen-Orta filed the civil action and an application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. The complaint appears to challenge an unfavorable decision by the California Department of Health Care Services concerning medical care that Plaintiff said would be deprived as of March 1, 2025. A letter attached to the complaint stated that the Department had denied her request for rehearing and advised her that she could seek review by filing a petition in Superior Court.
Jurisdiction and screening
The court explained that federal district courts have limited jurisdiction. The complaint needed to establish either federal-question jurisdiction, involving the Constitution or federal law, or diversity jurisdiction, involving qualifying parties from different states and more than $75,000 in controversy. The court concluded that alleging general violations of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments did not establish federal jurisdiction over what was essentially an appeal of a state administrative decision. The court also concluded that the complaint was insufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and could not be amended to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Ruling
The court granted Larsen-Orta’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. It reassigned the case to a district judge and recommended that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The provided text does not show a final district-judge order adopting or rejecting that recommendation. Any party may file objections with the district judge within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation. The judge’s signature in the provided text is not legible, so the judge cannot be identified reliably.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.