Barnett v. Regions Bank Main Branch (MAG+)

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by the plf as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as further set out in order Show Cause Response due by 8/31/2006. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 8/17/06. (djy, )

Download PDF
Barnett v. Regions Bank Main Branch (MAG+) Doc. 6 Case 2:06-cv-00725-MHT-CSC Document 6 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION D E R O N L. BARNETT, P l a in tif f , v. R E G IO N S BANK, D e f e n d a n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C IV IL ACTION NO. 2:06cv725-MHT (W O ) ORDER O n August 11, 2006, pro se plaintiff Deron Barnett filed this action against defendant R e g io n s Bank. According to Barnett, Regions Bank wrongfully allowed someone to take $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 from his safety deposit box in December 2002. B e c au s e federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, it is a basic premise of federal c o u rt practice that the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action b e f o re it can act. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); B u r n s v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11 th Cir. 1994). Thus, federal courts only h a v e the power to hear cases as authorized by the Constitution or the laws of the United S ta te s , see Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377, and are required to inquire into their jurisdiction at th e earliest possible point in the proceeding. Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 4 0 5 , 410 (11 t h Cir. 1999). In addition, FED R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) requires that "[w]herever it ap p ea rs . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court shall dismiss the action." This court o p e ra te s under an independent obligation to examine its own jurisdiction continues at each stag e of the proceedings, even if no party raises the jurisdictional issues and both parties are Case 2:06-cv-00725-MHT-CSC Document 6 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 2 of 2 prepared to concede it. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990). "It is axiomatic th a t a district court may inquire into the basis of its subject matter jurisdiction at any stage o f the proceedings." See 13 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure 3 5 2 2 (1975). It does not appear from a review of the complaint that the plaintiff presents a federal q u e s tio n to invoke this court's federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1331. In ad d ition , it appears that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. Thus, there d o e s not appear to be diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1332. Consequently, on the face o f the complaint, it does not appear that this court has jurisdiction over this matter. A c c o r d in g ly, it is ORDERED that on or before August 31, 2006, the plaintiff shall show cause why this c a s e should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff is advised th a t if he fails to respond to respond to this order with specificity, the court will treat h is failure to respond as an abandonment of the claims set forth in his complaint. The p la in tiff is further cautioned that if he fails to file a response in accordance with the d ir e c tiv e s of this order, the court will recommend that this case be dismissed. Done this 17th day of August, 2006. /s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY C H IE F UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?