Holt v. Citigroup Incorporated et al

Filing 5

ORDER dismissing the complaint, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the Clerk shall enter judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 1/22/14.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Bradley E. Holt,

No. CV-13-02648-PHX-JAT
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Citigroup Incorporated, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

On December 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint and an application to proceed in

15

forma pauperis. “Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge’s first

16

duty in every case.” Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350

17

F.3d 691, 693 (7th Cir. 2003).

18

In this case, Plaintiff alleges jurisdiction based on diversity. Doc. 1 at 2. Diversity

19

jurisdiction requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants.

20

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

21

Here, Plaintiff alleges that he is a resident (and presumably a citizen) of Tempe,

22

Arizona. Doc. 1 at 1. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Bursey and Associates is a

23

professional corporation that is a citizen of Tucson, Arizona. Id. at 2. Based on these

24

allegations, there is not diversity between all parties.

25
26

Additionally, the complaint alleges a single count of negligence, based on Arizona
state law. Therefore, there is also not federal subject matter jurisdiction.

27

Based on the foregoing,

28

IT IS ORDERED dismissing the complaint, without prejudice, for lack of subject

1
2
3
4

matter jurisdiction; the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.
2) is denied.
Dated this 22nd day of January, 2014.

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-