Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
1 WO
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9 Joseph C. Primous, ) No. CV-07-1680-PHX-DGC
)
10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER
)
11 vs. )
)
12 City of Phoenix Police Department, Hiring)
)
13 Defendant. )
)
14 )
15
16 Plaintiff Joseph Primous has filed a pro se complaint against the City of Phoenix
17 Police Department and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. ##1, 3. The Court will
18 dismiss the complaint without prejudice and deny the motion as moot.
19 I. Dismissal of the Complaint.
20 “[A] federal court may dismiss sua sponte if jurisdiction is lacking.” Fiedler v. Clark,
21 714 F.2d 77, 78 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Mich. Ry. Co. v. Swan,
22 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884)); see Franklin v. Or. State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th
23 Cir. 1981) (same). “While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when
24 a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for
25 lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Group, Inc., 336
26 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever
27 it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the
28 subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”).