Broadnax v. Ramirez et al

Filing 5

ORDER that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by April 15, 2011, alleging the state of citizenship of each party to establish diversity jurisdiction or this case will be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 3/18/11. (LSP)

Broadnax v. Ramirez et al

Doc. 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Lorena Garcia Ramirez; Leonard W.) ) Deehan, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Chad Everett Broadnax,

No. CV 11-0478-PHX-JAT ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Before the Court considers that motion, however, the Court will first consider it has jurisdiction to hear this case. Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th Cir. 2003) ("Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge's first duty in every case."). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. As a result, they can hear only those cases that the Constitution and Congress have authorized them to adjudicate: namely, cases involving diversity of citizenship, a federal question, or cases to which the United States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proving a jurisdictional basis exists. Id. In this case, because Plaintiff filed his suit in federal district court, he must show that the federal court is authorized to hear the case. Plaintiff states that jurisdiction is base on 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which is the diversity

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

statute. However, Plaintiff fails to allege his state of citizenship, or the citizenship of either Defendant.1 Accordingly, Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to amend his complaint to allege the state of citizenship of each party. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by April 15, 2011, alleging the state of citizenship of each party to establish diversity jurisdiction or this case will be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. DATED this 18th day of March, 2011.

Plaintiff does state that he is a citizen of the United States, and that Defendant Ramirez is from Mexico, but this type of citizenship allegation is not sufficient under the diversity statute. -2-

1