Toon v. Rivard et al

Filing 6

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied as moot. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 7/12/11.(LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

David Toon,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Patricia R. Rivard; Steven Rivard,
13
Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-1196-PHX-JAT
ORDER

15
16

“Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge’s first duty in every

17

case.” Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th

18

Cir. 2003). In this case, the complaint alleges jurisdiction based on diversity. Doc. 5 at 1;

19

28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs

20

and all defendants. Caterpillar v. Lewis, 386 U.S. 523, 531 (1996).

21

Plaintiff alleges that he is a citizen of Arizona. Doc. 5 at 1. Plaintiff alleges that

22

Defendant Patricia Rivard is a citizen of Arizona. Id. Plaintiff makes no jurisdictional

23

allegation for Defendant Steven Rivard. Based on these allegations, there is not complete

24

diversity among the parties. Further, because Plaintiff and one Defendant are both citizens

25

of the same state, the Court finds that this defect in jurisdiction cannot be cured by an

26

amendment to the complaint. Therefore,

27
28

IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of federal
subject matter jurisdiction.

1
2
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2)
is denied as moot.
DATED this 12th day of July, 2011.

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
-2-