Maledy v. Hicks et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting 10 MOTION to Dismiss with leave to plf to file, within seven days, an amended complaint setting forth the jurisdictional basis of this court, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 3/31/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )

Maledy v. Hicks et al

Doc. 15

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

MELISSA MALEDY, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN HICKS, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10cv254-MHT (WO)

It is ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 10) is granted with leave to plaintiff to file, within seven days, an amended complaint setting forth the jurisdictional basis of this court. Federal district courts are empowered to hear cases only by express congressional grants of jurisdiction. Therefore, to invoke the jurisdiction of such courts a complaint must affirmatively allege the statutory basis for the jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kirkland Masonry v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 614 F.2d 532, 533 (5th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff's complaint fails to do this.

Dockets.Justia.com

Plaintiff alleges that the court has jurisdiction in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1983. a jurisdictional 901 statute. 1552, See However, § 1983 is not Harris (M.D. itself v. McDonald's Fla. is 1995) not a

Corp.,

F.Supp. J.)

1557 1983

(Kovachevich,

("[Section]

jurisdictional statute. remedy for violation

It merely creates a private of civil rights under the

Constitution or other federal laws which might otherwise be unavailable."). DONE, this the 31st day of March, 2011.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE