Windham El v. Schonefeld
- Donna Ryu
- 3:25-cv-04241
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Windham El v. Schonefeld, Judge Ryu granted a fee waiver but ordered Rosalyn Angela Windham El to explain why her case should not be dismissed for lacking federal jurisdiction.
Rosalyn Angela Windham El, Cristene C. Schonefeld, and Robert S. Schonefeld; the case remains subject to a possible jurisdictional dismissal.
What happened
Windham El v. Schonefeld concerns Rosalyn Angela Windham El’s request to remove people from a property in Oakland. She sued Cristene C. Schonefeld and Robert S. Schonefeld without a lawyer and applied to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court found that the complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction because it did not identify a federal law that allowed the requested relief against the two private defendants. It also found that the complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction because the parties’ listed addresses were all in California.
Judge Donna M. Ryu granted Windham El permission to proceed without paying the filing fee but ordered her to explain in writing by July 29, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court vacated the scheduled case-management conference and has not yet dismissed the case.
The detailed version
- Windham El v. Schonefeld · No. 3:25-cv-04241
- Donna Ryu
- July 8, 2025
Background
Rosalyn Angela Windham El, representing herself, filed a complaint against Cristene C. Schonefeld and Robert S. Schonefeld. She described herself as a Moorish American National and as having a role connected to a trust involving property at 7361 Claremont Ave., Oakland, California. The complaint sought to eject people from that property.
Windham El also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court evaluated her financial affidavit and found that she met the economic requirement for that procedure. The court therefore granted her application to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Federal courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning they may hear only the types of disputes authorized by federal law. The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction requires the complaint itself to present a question arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Windham El relied on a provision of Article I, Section 10, concerning the use of gold and silver coin to pay debts. The court concluded that she could not bring a claim under that provision against the two private individuals and could not identify a federal legal provision authorizing the relief she requested.
The court also considered diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires the opposing parties to be citizens of different states and the amount in dispute to exceed $75,000. Windham El listed addresses in California for herself and both defendants. Although she later described herself as a citizen of the “Kingdom of California” and the defendants as citizens of “California Corporation 1850,” the court found that she had not shown complete diversity and that the complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction.
Order
The court found that Windham El had not pleaded a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. It ordered her to explain in writing by July 29, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If she did not respond, or if her response did not establish jurisdiction, the court stated that it might prepare a report and recommendation to dismiss the case.
The order did not dismiss the case. It vacated the initial case-management conference scheduled for August 20, 2025, and stated that the conference could be reset if necessary. The order also referred Windham El to court resources for people representing themselves.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.