Nails v. Daughtry et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Angela Denise Nails 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). ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Mark E. Fuller on 10/24/2007. (dmn)
Nails v. Daughtry et al
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION A N G E L A DENISE NAILS, P L A IN T IF F , v. P A M DAUGHTRY, et al., DEFEN DANTS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C A S E NO.: 2:07-cv-942-MEF (W O -N o t 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 O n October 19, 2007, Angela Denise Nails ("Nails") filed a lawsuit in this Court a g a in st Pam Daughtry and Tywanna Daughtry ("the Daughtrys") for injuries Nails allegedly s u f f ere d due to the Daughtrys' "harrasment." (Doc. # 1). Nails seeks $15,000 from each of th e defendants, who like Nails are alleged to be residents of Carrollton, Alabama. Id. Nails
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).
Page 2 of 3
h a s a long history of filing frivolous lawsuits in this Court.2 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 tio 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 (11th Cir. 1 9 9 4 ); Kirkland Masonry, Inc. v. Comm'r, 614 F.2d 532, 533 (5th 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
Since March 17, 2006, Nails has filed thirty-two lawsuits in this Court. Six of these w e r e filed within the past week. All twenty-six of Nails' prior suits were dismissed. Most o f them were dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction. In Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th 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. 2
Page 3 of 3
o f Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th 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 th a t 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 (11th Cir. 2000). A c c o r d , Barnett v. Bailey, 956 F.2d 1036, 1039-41 (11th Cir.1992) (holding that a court is r e q u ire d to examine its jurisdiction over an action at any time and dismiss an action sua s p 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 iv e n that this action is a personal injury action, in which $30,000 is at stake, between private p a rtie s who all are citizens of Alabama, the Court cannot imagine any possible, but as yet u n a rtic u la te d , basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Neither the United S ta te s Constitution, nor any act of Congress authorizes this Court to entertain this cause of a c tio n . Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT P R E J U D IC E for want of subject matter jurisdiction. DONE this the 24th day of October, 2007. /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?