Windham v. Howard

Background

On December 23, 2024, Rosalyn Angela Windham El filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying filing fees. She described herself as a Moorish American National and as a trustee connected to a trust involving property at 2943 Chestnut Street in Emeryville, California. She sought the ejection of people she characterized as squatters and appeared to refer to two individual defendants whom she alleged lived at the property.

Jurisdiction

Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu granted the fee-waiver application but determined that the complaint did not establish subject matter jurisdiction, meaning the federal court lacked legal authority to hear the dispute. The complaint did not allege a constitutional violation or another claim arising under federal law or a federal treaty, so it did not establish federal-question jurisdiction. The complaint also indicated that Windham was domiciled in California and that the defendants resided at the California property. Because the parties therefore appeared to all be California residents, the complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires the opposing parties to be citizens of different states.

Judge Ryu ordered Windham to explain why the case should not be dismissed. Windham did not file a response by the deadline. Judge Ryu then recommended dismissing the complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Windham did not object to that recommendation. She later filed a request for notice of a pending property-related lawsuit, but the filing did not respond to the jurisdiction questions or identify a new basis for federal jurisdiction.

Ruling

Judge William Orrick reviewed the record, agreed with Judge Ryu’s recommendation, and adopted it in full. The court stated that the uncontested facts showed that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case without prejudice. The order did not decide the parties’ rights to the property.