Nails v. Steensland
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, granting 2 MOTION to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Angela Denise Nails; Ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice for want of subject matter jurisdiction as further set out. Signed by Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/11/06. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist)(vma, )
Nails v. Steensland
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA S O U T H E R N DIVISION A N G E L A DENISE NAILS, P l a in tif f , v. M A R C U S E STEENSLAND, D e f e n d a n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C A S E NO.: 1:06-cv-799-WKW (W O )
M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER This action is presently before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. # 2.) It is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. However, upon thorough review of the complaint filed in this case, the Court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).1 On September 6, 2006, the plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a "Complaint of Negligence" in which she seeks $400,000 from Houston County Judge Marcus Steensland2 for her eight-day incarceration in the Dothan County Jail. (Doc. # 1.) The plaintiff fails to set forth any ground which establishes jurisdiction in a federal court over such a complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1).3 Moreover, this Court is unable to surmise any basis on which the plaintiff could invoke the
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide, in pertinent part: "W h e n e v e r it appears by suggestion of the p a r tie s or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P . 12(h)(3).
The Court notes that the plaintiff incorrectly spelled "Marcus" in the caption of this case.
Under Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff is required to allege in her complaint " a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends." Indeed, a federal court's ju r is d i c t i o n m u s t be established by a plaintiff in the complaint by stating the basis of the court's jurisdiction and by p l e a d i n g facts that demonstrate the existence of jurisdiction. Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11 th Cir. 1994).
Page 2 of 2
jurisdiction of a federal court to consider the subject matter of the instant complaint. The Court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of subject matter jurisdiction. An appropriate judgment shall be entered. DONE the 11th day of September, 2006.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?