Craynon v. CitiMortgage Incorporated
Filing
14
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 2 motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prepayment of costs or fees or the necessity of giving security therefor. Service by waiver or of the summons and complaint shall be at government expense on the Defenda nt by the U.S. Marshal or his authorized representative. Plaintiff shall complete and return all necessary documents to effect service to the Clerk's office (to forward to the Marshal) within 30 days of the date of this Order; Plaintiff's 10 motion for summary judgment is denied, without prejudice. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 10/11/11. (ESL)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Sebastian Craynon,
10
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
CitiMortgage, Inc.,
13
Defendant.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 11-8081-PCT-JAT
ORDER
15
16
Pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.
17
Before ruling on this request, the Court has twice required Plaintiff to amend his complaint
18
to allege federal subject matter jurisdiction. In response to this Court’s orders, on September
19
7, 2011, Plaintiff filed another amended complaint.
20
In this amended complaint, Plaintiff again alleges diversity jurisdiction and federal
21
question jurisdiction. Taking diversity first, Plaintiff fails to allege a citizenship for himself,
22
and fails to allege Defendant CitiMortgage Inc.’s principal place of business. See Hertz
23
Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1192; - - - U.S. - - - (2010). Plaintiff further fails to allege
24
any amount in controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This is inadequate to allege diversity
25
jurisdiction. Thus, despite the fact that subject matter jurisdiction premised on diversity
26
might be possible, having given Plaintiff two prior opportunities to amend, and Plaintiff still
27
failing to plead jurisdiction, the Court will not further advise Plaintiff how to plead his case.
28
Next, the Court will consider federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff brings a cause of
1
action for quiet title, which is a state law claim. Plaintiff cites several federal statutes that
2
he claims support his quiet title claim (Plaintiff never mentions to what he is seeking to quiet
3
title). Because Plaintiff at least attempts to premise his quiet title claim on Defendant’s
4
alleged violation of federal law, and construing Plaintiff’s amended complaint extremely
5
liberally, the Court finds Plaintiff has at least attempted to bring a claim under federal law.
6
This finding is without prejudice to Defendant raising any jurisdictional issues it deems
7
appropriate.
8
As a result of the Court finding jurisdiction has been pleaded,
9
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2)
10
without prepayment of costs or fees or the necessity of giving security therefor. Service by
11
waiver or of the summons and complaint shall be at government expense on the Defendant
12
by the U.S. Marshal or his authorized representative. Plaintiff shall complete and return all
13
necessary documents to effect service to the Clerk’s office (to forward to the Marshal) within
14
30 days of the date of this Order.
15
16
17
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc.
10) is denied, without prejudice.
DATED this 11th day of October, 2011.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
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?