Curry v. Cox Enterprises PAC, Inc. et al

Filing 10

ORDER: The Court finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. As a result, this case is DISMISSED, and the clerk is DIRECTED to close this action. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 8/22/2013. (cem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
DEBRA CURRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEREDITH ENTERPRISES
INC., CBS ATLANTA NEWS,
BERNARD WATSON, and
FRANK OLSON,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:12-CV-1764-RWS

ORDER
On August 29, 2012, Magistrate Judge Gerrilyn G. Brill entered an Order
[5] permitting Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. The case
was then referred to the undersigned for a frivolity determination. Having
carefully considered the record, the Court enters the following order.
Background
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was filed on August 29, 2012 [7]. The
Amended Complaint sets forth three causes of action: (1) an appropriation of
likeness claim, (2) slander, and (3) unjust enrichment. Plaintiff asserts these
claims against Defendants Meredith Enterprises, CBS Atlanta News, Bernard

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Watson, and Frank Olson.
Analysis
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), “the court shall dismiss the case
at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” A claim
is frivolous when it appears from the face of the complaint that the factual
allegations are “clearly baseless” or that the legal theories are “indisputably
meritless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Carrol v. Gross,
984 F.2d 393, 393 (11th Cir. 1993).
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [2] cannot survive a
frivolity determination because this Court does not have jurisdiction over this
matter. There are two primary types of subject matter jurisdiction given to
federal district courts. First, federal district courts have federal question
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which means that this Court has
jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties
of the United States. Second, federal district courts have diversity jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which means that this Court has jurisdiction over
2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

cases which satisfy two conditions: (1) no defendant is a citizen of the same
state as any plaintiff, and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
In this case, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction
because Plaintiff’s claims are brought under state law. This Court also does not
have diversity jurisdiction because as conceded by Plaintiff, some if not all of
Defendants are citizens of the state of Georgia [7, at page 4]. As such, the first
condition for diversity jurisdiction is not satisfied.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that it does not have subject
matter jurisdiction over this action. As a result, this case is DISMISSED, and
the clerk is DIRECTED to close this action.
SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of August, 2013.

________________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
United States District Judge

3

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)