MITCHELL v. MORMAN et al
ORDER granting 6 Motion to Dismiss Complaint. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Ordered by U.S. District Judge W LOUIS SANDS on 4/29/2014. (bcl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
TATRINA MORMAN and
CASE NO.: 1:13-cv-192 (WLS)
Plaintiff Flora Mitchell, proceeding pro se, brought suit against Defendants
Patrina Morman and Acceptance Insurance Company for claims arising out of a car
accident in Albany, Georgia. (Docs. 1, 5.) On December 13, 2013, the Court granted
Mitchell’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and directed her to file an amended
complaint stating the jurisdictional basis for her claim. In her amended complaint,
Mitchell again fails to state the jurisdictional basis for her claim, but appears to allege
that her suit is premised on diversity jurisdiction. Defendant Acceptance Insurance
Company appeared in the case and moves to dismiss for lack of personal and subject
matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 6.) The Court grants the motion.
Federal courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction. Morrison v. Allstate
Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260–61 (11th Cir. 2000). A federal district court may hear
cases only for which there has been a constitutional and a congressional grant of
jurisdiction. Id. at 1261. Congress has granted federal district courts jurisdiction to hear
cases involving a federal question and cases involving “citizens of different States.” 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. A court may exercise diversity jurisdiction when (a) all of the
plaintiffs are citizens of states different from the states where the defendants are citizens
and (b) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. § 1332. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure requires a plaintiff to plead “a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1).
Mitchell’s complaint fails to adequately allege a jurisdictional basis. She states
the Court has subject matter jurisdiction apparently because Acceptance Insurance
Company is domiciled in Tennessee. But the Complaint also alleges that Mitchell and
Defendant Morman are domiciled in Georgia. To establish diversity jurisdiction, the
Parties must be completely diverse—meaning every plaintiff must be diverse from
every defendant. Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 1998).
Mitchell also did not allege a federal question.
For those reasons, Acceptance Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is
GRANTED, and Mitchell complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this _
_ day of April, 2014.
/s/ W. Louis Sands_________
W. LOUIS SANDS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?