Braun v. Stout

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 2 Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/14/2013. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
BRENDA LEE BRAUN,
Plaintiff,

v.

Civ. No. 13-486-RGA

PHILLIP STOUT
Defendant.

Brenda Lee Braun, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Pro Se Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

May\~,

2013
Wilmington, Delaware

Plaintiff Brenda Lee Braun filed this action seeking payment for theft by
deception. She appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (D. I. 4). The Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff states that Defendant Phillip Stout "needs to be put back in prison for
terristic [sic] threats, theft by deception, abuse by verbal and mental. ... " She also
seeks a permanent no-contact order. She alleges that Stout threatened to beat her, if
she did not change her party and vote Republican. In addition, Plaintiff seeks
reimbursement in the amount of $540.91 for items she purchased for Stout. Plaintiff
alleges that Stout misled her into believing that he would reimburse her for the items. It
appears that all items were purchased in Delaware.
While the civil cover sheet asserts jurisdiction by reason of a federal question,
the Court perceives no basis for federal jurisdiction. In addition, there is no diversity
jurisdiction. The Complaint, and the civil cover sheet, indicate that, at the time she
initiated this lawsuit, Plaintiff was a citizen of the State of Delaware as is Defendant.
Further, Plaintiff alleges damages in the amount of $540.91. Hence, the requisites for
diversity jurisdiction are not met. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (for diversity jurisdiction the
matter in controversy must exceed the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs); id. at§ 1332(a)(1) (for diversity jurisdiction the matter in controversy must
be between citizens of different States). Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this matter.

For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Amendment is futile.
An appropriate order will be entered.

I

I

r
~

!

2

!
!

!
t

t