Nails v. Brown
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Mark E. Fuller on 10/25/2007. (wcl, )
Nails v. Brown
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 tif f , v. T A N Y A BROWN D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C A S E NO. 2:07-cv-948-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 ORDERED 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 23, 2007, Angela Denise Nails ("Nails") filed a lawsuit in this Court a g a in s t Tanya Brown ("Brown"), who like Nails is an Alabama resident, for "harassment." (D o c . # 1). It appears from the allegations of the Complaint, that Nails and Brown reside in th e same area and have been in a dispute over "public clothing lines." Id. Nails has a long
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 isto ry 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 (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
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. Two of her recently filed s u its were also dismissed on this basis. 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. 2
Page 3 of 3
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 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 (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 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 f a ile d to articulate any conceivable basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Neither the U n ited States Constitution, nor any act of Congress authorizes this Court to entertain this c a u s e of action. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED W IT H O U T PREJUDICE for want of subject matter jurisdiction. DONE this the 25th 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?