Davis v. Johnson et al
ORDER directing the Clerk to amend the docket: No. 9 is a response, not an answer. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. The complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. 1 Motion denied as moot. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 5/17/2017. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
VALTINE DAVIS JOHNSON, Husband;
RICHARD JOHNSON; RITA ELLIS,
Power of Attorney for Sarah G. Davis (Deceased);
SARAH ANN DAVIS; and
JERUSHA DAVIS HOBBS, Neighbor
1. The Court appreciates the additional information from Davis about
her finances. The Court directs the Clerk to amend the docket: NQ 9 is a
response, not an answer- though the Court did ask questions, and
understands why Davis titled her responding document as an answer. Davis
has some income, some assets, and, of course, bills. She could probably pay
the filing fee over time.
2. But the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute.
Several of the people from whom Davis seeks relief are Arkansawyers, as she
is. There must be complete diversity among all parties for the Court to
proceed under 28U.S.C.§1332; OnePoint Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d
342, 346 (8th Cir. 2007). (Davis can't avoid this rule of law by suing fellow
Arkansawyers but calling them accomplices. If Davis wants money from
them for their actions, and she does, NQ 2-4 at 6, then all these folks are
defendants.) And the Court does not see a question of federal law. This is a
family dispute about real and personal property in Jefferson County. On the
facts Davis alleges, the dispute turns on state law, not the U.S. Constitution
or a federal statute. So the Court can't proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction. Motion, NQ 1, denied as moot.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
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?