Pinner v. Hutton
Filing
10
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 10/31/2016. (lhc)(cc: Plaintiff)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
CURTIS PINNER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LAMONT HUTTON,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 2:16-CV-137
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court sua sponte.
On June 17, 2016,
this Court dismissed a document filed by Pinner and construed as a
complaint by the Clerk’s Office, indicating that the filing fell
“far short of what is required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8.”
(DE #7).
The Court expressed several concerns, including
whether this Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Pinner’s
claims.
Pinner was instructed as follows:
If Plaintiff believes he has a claim
cognizable against Hutton in federal court, he
may file an amended complaint complying with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and
explicitly explaining why he believes this
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his
claim. The amended complaint needs to contain
a short and plain statement of what happened
to him which gives rise to his claims.
He
needs to state when these events occurred and
clearly
explain
how
the
defendant
was
specifically involved with each claim that he
is raising against that defendant.
He need
not include extraneous facts that do not
involve the matter at hand. Additionally, the
complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter to “state a claim that is plausible on
its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the pleaded factual content
allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at
678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
(DE #7).
In response, Pinner filed a document titled “Amended Statement
to United States District Court (Northern Division) For Case Pinner
v. Hutton (2:15-cv-00137, Indiana Northern District Court.”
#9).
(DE
This document comes no closer to complying with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8 than the previous one.
It is 182 pages, which
is far from the “short and plain statement” required by Rule 8.
And, it is formatted such that, upon receipt, no defendant would
reasonably understand that this is a complaint requiring action on
his part.
Furthermore, it would be difficult if not impossible to
craft an answer to the 182-page document, consisting mostly of
language from the Indiana Code followed by explanations of how the
provision was violated.
Setting aside these shortcomings, the
Amended Statement makes no effort to explain why this Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over these claims.
This Court has an obligation to ensure that it has proper
subject matter jurisdiction over each lawsuit that it brought in
this Court.
Wisconsin Knife Works v. National Metal Crafters, 781
F.2d 1280, 1282 (7th Cir. 1986).
This Court has an obligation to
police subject matter jurisdiction, and it is appropriate for this
Court to address subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.
The
burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists
2
rests with the plaintiff.
Lexington Ins. Co. V. Rugg & Knopp,
Inc., 165 F.3d 1087, 1090 (7th Cir. 1999).
In order to avoid
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff must
demonstrate that either diversity jurisdiction or federal question
jurisdiction exists.
Bovee v. Broom, 732 F.3d 743, 744 (7th Cir.
2013).
For this Court to have diversity jurisdiction over Pinner’s
claims, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, and there
must be diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and defendant.
The complaint must allege the amount in controversy and the
citizenship of all parties.
J.E.G.
Associates,
Electronics
Corp.
101
v.
Guaranty Nat’l Title Company, Inc. v.
F.3d
57,
Kimball
58
(7th
Cir.
International
1996);
Mfg.,
Zenith
Inc.,
114
F.Supp.2d 764, 767 (E.D. Ill. 2000).
Here, Pinner’s Amended
Statement
in
does
not
allege
citizenship of the parties.
the
amount
controversy
or
the
Pinner has not alleged diversity
jurisdiction and nothing in his Amended Statement suggests that
there is diversity of citizenship between the parties.
Federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
1331, requires that the action arise “under the Constitution, laws,
or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
“Ordinarily,
the basis for federal-question jurisdiction must be apparent from
the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.”
Crosby v.
Cooper B-Line, Inc., 725 F.3d 795, 800 (7th Cir. 2013); see also
3
Northeastern Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. Wabash Valley Power
Association, 707 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2013).
Pinner’s first filing
indicated that the Court had jurisdiction because the United States
Government was a plaintiff, and also cited to a federal statute: 18
U.S.C.
section
1114.
(DE
#1).
Although
the
United
States
Government was not a plaintiff to the action and the statute relied
upon was clearly inapplicable, the filing suggested that Pinner
thought he had claims based on a federal law.
The Amended
Statement, however, cites exclusively to Indiana laws.
There is
nothing whatsoever in the Amended Statement that suggests this
action contains any claim based on the Constitution or laws of the
United States of America.
This Court directed Pinner to explain why he believes this
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims.
do so.
He did not
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to DISMISS
this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
DATED: October 31, 2016
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United State District Court
4
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?