Nails v. Feager

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the 2 Motion to Proceed In forma pauperis is granted. A separeate judgment will be entered dismissing this action. Signed by Judge William Keith Watkins on 1/8/2007. (cb, )

Download PDF
Nails v. Feager Doc. 3 Case 1:07-cv-00006-WKW-SRW Document 3 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 1 of 2 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ANGELA DENISE NAILS, Plaintiff, v. JENIFER FEAGER, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:07-cv-06-WKW (WO) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to proceed in forma pauperis in this action (Doc. # 2). Upon consideration of the motion, it is ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Upon review of the complaint filed in this case, the court concludes that dismissal of the complaint prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action against defendant Jenifer Feager, a security guard employed by "DSI" and assigned to work at Plaintiff's apartment complex. Plaintiff brings a negligence claim against Feager, alleging that: (1) Feager watched and refused to call the police while somebody assaulted Plaintiff, then lied to the police about the attack; (2) Feager reminded Plaintiff "loudly and nasty to lock the door behind the plaintiff" when the plaintiff knows to lock the door; and (3) Feager came into the laundry room on Plaintiff's floor, told Plaintiff that it was 8:55 p.m. and asked Plaintiff when her clothes would be finished. Plaintiff is required to allege "a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the The statute provides, in pertinent part: "[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines th a t . . . the action or appeal­ (i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or ( iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 1 Case 1:07-cv-00006-WKW-SRW Document 3 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 2 of 2 court's jurisdiction depends[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). She must both state the basis of the court's jurisdiction and plead facts that demonstrate the existence of jurisdiction. Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). Although Plaintiff begins her complaint with the allegation that "[t]he case follows under the jurisdiction Article III Section 2a Constitutional law," the complaint includes no facts supporting a federal claim. Plaintiff's cause of action against Feager, if any, arises solely under state law. Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), the venue provision that pertains to actions founded only on diversity of citizenship. Although the amount in controversy is sufficient to sustain diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 ­ Plaintiff seeks an award of one billion dollars ­ the complaint does not establish complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and the defendant. Plaintiff alleges that she and the defendant "both live in the same state." (Doc. # 1, Compl,, 1.) While the court must construe Plaintiff's pro se complaint liberally, no construction of the facts she has alleged gives rise to federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. "Whenever it appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A separate judgment will be entered dismissing this action. Done this 8th day of January, 2007. /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?