Windham v. Howard
- William Orrick
- 3:24-cv-09344
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Windham v. Howard, Judge Ryu granted fee-waiver status and ordered an explanation of federal jurisdiction before possible dismissal.
The order directly affects Rosalyn Angela Windham El and the defendants named in the case. It grants Windham permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees but requires her to explain the basis for federal jurisdiction by May 9, 2025; the case may later be subject to a recommendation for dismissal if she does not establish jurisdiction.
What happened
In Windham v. Howard, Rosalyn Angela Windham El, representing herself, sued individuals seeking removal of people from a property. She applied to proceed without paying filing fees, and the court found that she met the financial requirement.
The court said the complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction because it did not identify a federal claim supporting the requested removal. It also said the parties appeared to be California residents, so diversity jurisdiction was not shown.
Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu ordered Windham to explain by May 9, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court did not dismiss the case in this order and said it may later recommend dismissal if the response is missing or insufficient.
The detailed version
- Windham v. Howard · No. 3:24-cv-09344
- William Orrick
- Apr. 9, 2025
Background
Rosalyn Angela Windham El filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. She described herself as a Moorish American National and as a trustee connected to a property at 2943 Chestnut St. in Emeryville, California. The complaint sought the removal of alleged squatters and others connected with the property.
The caption names the defendants as Mercidel Howard and Mikkela Rose-Marie Sweet, while the complaint identifies them as Mercidel Howard and Joyce Annette Howard. The opinion does not resolve that naming discrepancy.
Fee-waiver application
The court reviewed Windham’s financial affidavit and granted her application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying court fees. The court explained that this grant did not prevent later screening or dismissal under the statute governing fee-waiver cases.
Subject-matter jurisdiction
The court issued an order to show cause because it was not clear that it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.
The court concluded that the complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction. Although Windham cited Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution and referred to Moorish American history, a private trust, and property rights, the court said the complaint did not allege a constitutional violation or identify a federal law or treaty supporting the requested ejectment. The court also noted that constitutional protections generally apply to government action, not to private individuals.
The court further concluded that diversity jurisdiction was not shown. Windham alleged that she was domiciled in California. The complaint identified the two defendants as residents of a California address on one page and as residents of “California Corporation 1850” on another. Because all three parties appeared to be California residents, the court said the parties were not diverse and the requirements for diversity jurisdiction were not met.
Order
The court ordered Windham to explain in writing, no later than May 9, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. If she did not respond, or if her response did not establish jurisdiction, the court said it may prepare a report and recommendation recommending dismissal. The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It also referred Windham to court resources for people representing themselves.
The order was signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.