Sayers-Roods v. Machado
- Edward Davila
- 5:22-cv-03092
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sayers-Roods v. Machado, Judge Davila ordered Sayers-Roods to explain federal jurisdiction before possible dismissal or remand.
Kanyon Sayers-Roods, who was directed to explain why the federal court had jurisdiction and why the action should not be dismissed or remanded; Marlene Rita Machado was the defendant.
What happened
In Sayers-Roods v. Machado, pro se plaintiff Kanyon Sayers-Roods sued Marlene Rita Machado, both on behalf of her mother and in her individual capacity. The complaint relied on several alleged bases for federal jurisdiction and attached documents from another case.
The court said those asserted bases did not appear to establish federal jurisdiction. It also noted that a federal statute may give California jurisdiction over civil cases involving Indians in Indian country, suggesting that the federal court might lack jurisdiction.
Judge Edward J. Davila ordered Sayers-Roods to submit a written response and appear in court to explain why the case should remain in federal court. The order did not yet dismiss the case or remand it to state court.
The detailed version
- Sayers-Roods v. Machado · No. 5:22-cv-03092
- Edward Davila
- June 1, 2022
Background
Pro se plaintiff Kanyon Sayers-Roods filed the action on May 26, 2022, acting as her mother Ann-Marie Sayers’s power of attorney and also suing in her individual capacity. The complaint attached and appeared to incorporate documents from a separate case. Sayers-Roods also filed a proposed order for a temporary restraining order, but she did not file a separate motion as required by the court’s local rules.
Jurisdiction concern
The court reviewed the complaint and attached documents and understood the case to involve claims by an Indian plaintiff against a non-Indian defendant arising from events in Indian country. Sayers-Roods identified 15 U.S.C. § 1116, 18 U.S.C. § 1151, and the Property Clause of the Constitution as bases for federal-question jurisdiction.
The court explained that 15 U.S.C. § 1116 concerns injunctive relief in federal trademark-infringement cases, while the complaint did not appear to assert trademark claims. It said 18 U.S.C. § 1151 defines “Indian country” but does not address federal district-court jurisdiction. The court likewise said the Property Clause does not discuss federal district-court jurisdiction. It therefore concluded that the complaint did not describe a basis for federal jurisdiction.
The court also considered 28 U.S.C. § 1360(a), which provides that California has jurisdiction over certain civil causes of action between Indians or involving Indians that arise in Indian country within California. The court said this statute suggested that the federal court might lack jurisdiction and might not be able to provide the requested relief.
Order
The court ordered Sayers-Roods to file a written response by June 7, 2022, and to appear on June 9, 2022, to show why the federal court had jurisdiction in light of § 1360(a). It also ordered her to explain why the court should not dismiss the action or remand it to the San Benito County Superior Court. The order did not itself dismiss or remand the action. The court provided information about the Federal Pro Se Program and other resources for people representing themselves.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.