Nails v. Rana et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees; ORDERING that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Mark E. Fuller on 9/11/06. (djy, )

Download PDF
Nails v. Rana et al Doc. 3 Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 3 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 3 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 T IF F , v. A L S A RANA, et al., DEFEN DANTS. ) ) ) ) ) C A S E NO.: 1:06-cv-801-MEF ) ) (WO-Not Recommended for Publication) ) ) M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER P la in tif f has filed a motion seeking to proceed in forma pauperis in this action (Doc. # 2). Upon consideration of the motion, it is O R D E R E D that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Upon re v ie w of the complaint filed in this case, the court concludes that dismissal of the complaint p rio r to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1 A n g e la Denise Nails ("Nails") filed this suit against Alsa and Russle Rana ("the R a n a s " ) on September 6, 2006. Nails, a citizen of Alabama, brings suit against the Ranas, a lso citizens of Alabama according to the allegations of the Complaint, for allegedly b re a ch in g a contract with her by evicting her from the apartment she had rented from them a f ter she repeated complained about another tenant.2 The statute provides, in pertinent part: "[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any tim e if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal­ (i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii) f a ils to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a d ef en d an t who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff has filed at least two lawsuits against that tenant, Eugene Preston, in this C o u rt for personal injuries she claims to have suffered when he struck her with a vehicle he 2 1 Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 3 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 2 of 3 A federal court is a court of limited of jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins., 5 1 1 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). That is, a federal court is authorized to entertain only certain a c t i o n s which the Constitution or Congress has authorized it to hear. Id. "It is to be p re su m e d that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, ..., and the burden of establishing th e contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction,...." Id. (citations omitted). Therefore, a plaintiff is required by Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to allege in his c o m p la in t "a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction d e p e n d s." Indeed, a federal court's jurisdiction must be established by a plaintiff in the c o m p la in t by stating the basis of the court's jurisdiction and by pleading facts that d e m o n s tra te the existence of jurisdiction. Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11 th Cir. 1 9 9 4 ); Kirkland Masonry, Inc. v. Comm'r, 614 F.2d 532, 533 (5 th Cir. 1980) (same).3 P r o se litigants are not excused from compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil P r o c e d u re . Although the court is required to liberally construe a pro se litigant's pleadings, th e court does not have "license to serve as de facto counsel for a party ..., or to re-write an o th e rw is e deficient pleading in order to sustain an action...." GJR Investments, Inc. v. County o f Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11 th Cir. 1998). Consequently, a court may not e x c u se a pro se litigant from the requirement of stating the basis for the court's jurisdiction in her pleadings. "[O]nce a court determines that there has been no [Congressional] grant was driving. Two of these lawsuits were dismissed by this court for want of subject matter ju ri s d ic tio n . In Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11 th Cir. Nov. 3, 1981) (e n banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions h a n d e d down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. 3 Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 3 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 3 of 3 that covers a particular case, the court's sole remaining act is to dismiss the case for lack of ju ris d ic tio n ." Morrison v. Allstate Indemnity Co ., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11 th Cir. 2000). A c c o r d , Barnett v. Bailey, 956 F.2d 1036, 1039-41 (11 th Cir.1992) (holding that a court is re q u ire d to examine its jurisdiction over an action at any time and dismiss an action sua sp o n te for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if jurisdiction is not found). Indeed, Federal R u le of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) specifically provides that "[w]henever it appears by s u g g e s tio n of the parties or otherwise that the court lack jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (emphasis added). A f te r a careful review of the Complaint (Doc. # 1), the Court finds that Nails has fa iled to articulate any conceivable basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, g iven that this action is a breach of contract action between private parties who all are c itiz e n s of Alabama, the Court cannot imagine any possible, but as yet unarticulated basis for f e d era l subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Neither the United States Constitution, n o r any act of Congress authorizes this Court to entertain this cause of action. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of s u b je c t matter jurisdiction. DONE this the 11 th day of September, 2006. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF 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?