Sprague v. Unknown Railroad Company et al

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING with leave to amend 10 Amended Complaint filed by Carl Sprague, denying as moot 8 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel filed by Carl Sprague, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint no later than December 18, 2017. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 11/16/2017. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CARL SPRAGUE,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 17-cv-1050-DRH-RJD

UNKNOWN RAILROAD COMPANY,
CITY OF VANDALIA, ILLINOIS,
MAYOR OF VANDALIA, ILLINOIS, and
UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
In this order, the Court raises sua sponte the issue of whether it has
subject matter jurisdiction over this case. after its initial review of plaintiff Carl
Sprague’s amended complaint (Doc. 10). Following the Court’s initial review of
plaintiff Carl Sprague’s amended complaint (Doc. 10), it appears that Sprague’s
amended complaint fails to properly allege whether subject matter jurisdiction
exists over his claims. See Foster v. Hill, 497 F.3d 695, 696-97 (7th Cir. 2007)
(“It is the responsibility of a court to make an independent evaluation of whether
subject matter jurisdiction exists in every case.”); Johnson v. Wattenbarger, 361
F.3d 991, 992 (7th Cir. 2004) (a district court’s “first duty in every suit” is “to
determine the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction”). For the reasons stated
below, plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed with leave to file a second
Page 1 of 4

amended complaint.
On September 28, 2017, Carl Sprague filed a pro se civil rights complaint
against defendants Unknown Railroad Company; City of Vandalia, Illinois; Mayor
of Vandalia, Illinois; and Unknown Defendants (Doc. 2).

On that same date,

plaintiff also filed motions to proceed without prepaying fees or costs (Doc. 3) and
for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 4). After reading Sprague’s pleadings, the Court
found that Sprague’s motion to proceed IFP did not survive § 1915(e)(2) review
because the Court was unable to determine precisely what Sprague’s claims were
against the named defendants. His initial complaint was both nonsensical and
hard to follow. Ultimately, the Court denied without prejudice his motions to
proceed without prepaying fees or costs and motion for counsel and allowed
Sprague until October 30, 2017, to file an amended complaint that more clearly
articulated his allegations against the defendants, and the facts that support those
allegations (Doc. 6).
Thereafter, on October 24, 2017, Sprague filed an amended complaint
(Doc. 7) and amended motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 8). However, upon
review of the amended complaint, it appeared that the document was missing
pages 1 and 2. The Court struck the amended complaint as incomplete and
directed Sprague to file his amended complaint in its entirety no later than
November 14, 2017 (Doc. 9). The Court also advised Sprague of his continuing
obligation to keep the Clerk informed of any change in his address, given that his
amended motion for recruitment of counsel referenced an upcoming release date
Page 2 of 4

from prison.
Later that same day, October 24, 2017, Sprague filed his amended
complaint with all pages included (Doc. 10). Having reviewed the allegations of the
first amended complaint, the Court discerns certain flaws in Sprague’s pleading
with respect to federal jurisdiction.
Federal subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
and 1332. Section 1331 addresses federal question jurisdiction, meaning “[t]he
district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Section
1332, on the other hand, addresses diversity jurisdiction. As a general rule, a
federal court may exercise jurisdiction in diversity only if all of the parties to an
action are of completely diverse citizenship, that is, no plaintiff is a citizen of the
same state as any defendant, and an amount in excess of $75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs, is in controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
On the face of the amended complaint, this appears to be a personal injury
case with no constitutional implications. However, plaintiff ultimately fails to
establish federal jurisdiction, based on diversity jurisdiction, or otherwise.
Therefore, his complaint must be dismissed with leave to amend.
Accordingly, Sprague’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.
Plaintiff must file an amended complaint no later than December 18, 2017,
alleging the citizenship of the parties, the amount in controversy, or some other

Page 3 of 4

basis for federal jurisdiction. Failure to do so will result in dismissal without
prejudice for failure to allege subject matter jurisdiction. Given the dismissal of
plaintiff’s complaint, his amended motion for recruitment of counsel is DENIED
as moot (Doc. 8).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2017.11.16
15:35:24 -06'00'
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4