Phillips v. Midstates Concrete
Filing
13
OPINION AND ORDER: Court GRANTS 6 Motion to Dismiss. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 10/7/2016. cc: Phillips(tc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
JAMES L. PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIDSTATES CONCRETE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
) CAUSE NO. 1:16-CV-296-PPS-SLC
)
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
Phillips brought this action by filing a complaint containing only one line
alleging, “[T]hey stole my Dirt.” [DE 1.] Midstates Concrete filed a motion to dismiss
this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint is completely
devoid of any information that would indicate that this Court has jurisdiction over
Phillips’ allegation. [DE 6.] For a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), I will accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and will draw
any reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Ctr. for Dermatology & Skin Cancer,
Ltd. v. Burwell, 770 F.3d 586, 588 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Iddir v. I.N.S., 301 F.3d 492, 496
(7th Cir. 2014). However, the plaintiff is responsible for “establishing that the
jurisdictional requirements have been met.” Id. When the court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, it “should proceed no further than determining whether to dismiss or
transfer the case.” Baker v. Kingsley, 387 F.3d 649, 656 (7th Cir. 2004).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 mandates that a pleading must contain “a short
and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Phillips’ complaint is
devoid of such a statement. District courts have original jurisdiction over all civil
actions where there is: 1) a federal question; or 2) diversity of citizenship and an
amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1332. To involve a
federal question, the action must arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, Phillips does not identify any provision in the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States under which his action arises. Again,
his complaint contains only a single line alleging the Midstates Concrete stole his dirt.
Because Phillips fails to allege any federal right or law that Midstates Concrete violated,
he fails to establish federal question jurisdiction.
District courts also “have original jurisdiction over all civil actions where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs, and is between . . . citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A corporation
is a citizen of its state of incorporation and the state where it has its principal place of
business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Here, Phillips has neither alleged the citizenship of
either party, nor alleged any amount of damages for which he seeks relief. Thus,
Phillips fails to establish diversity jurisdiction.
Because Phillips failed to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction
over his allegation, I must dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
ACCORDINGLY:
The Court GRANTS Midstates Concrete’s Motion to Dismiss [DE 6]. This action
is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: October 7, 2016
_s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF 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?