Pringle v. Unrue
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it is frivolous. ***Civil Case Terminated. (cc: Pringle) Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 12/5/16. (mlc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ROGER PRINGLE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MS. UNRUE, and MR. UNRUE,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-781
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on a complaint filed by Roger
Pringle, a pro se prisoner, on November 17, 2016. For the reasons
set forth below, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A because it is frivolous.
DISCUSSION
“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a
pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and
citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and
dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
The case initiating document filed by Pringle was two half
sheets to paper taped together. Though limited, it is appropriate
to liberally construe this filing as a complaint because it
identifies two defendants (Ms. Unrue and Mr. Unrue), explains what
they did (stole money from Pringle), and seeks relief (he wants
his money). Moreover, Pringle clearly expressed his intent to file
a new case because he wrote, “New Case Need Case Number ” at the
top of the paper.
After Pringle mailed the document used to open this case, he
filed a letter (DE 2) which provides additional information about
his claim. Pringle is alleging that his sister and Mr. Unrue (her
husband perhaps) stole $6,000 of insurance money that he was to
have received when his mother died. This is not a federal claim.
That is to say, this claim is based on a violation of State law,
not federal law. Therefore if this court has jurisdiction to hear
this case, it would be based on diversity of citizenship. Pringle
does not identify the State citizenship of either him or either of
the defendants. Nevertheless, it is clear that this court does not
have
diversity
jurisdiction
because
the
$6,000
claim
is
insufficient. “In order to support diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. sec. 1332, two basic requirements must be satisfied: (1)
complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and the
defendants and (2) the proper amount in controversy (more than $
75,000).” Neuma, Inc. v. AMP, Inc., 259 F.3d 864, 881 (7th Cir.
2
2001). Filing this lawsuit in this court which lacks jurisdiction
over these claims was legally frivolous. See Haury v. Lemmon, 656
F.3d 521, 523 (7th Cir. 2011).
Though it is usually necessary “to give pro se litigants one
opportunity
to
amend
after
dismissing
a
complaint[,]
that’s
unnecessary where, as here, it is certain from the face of the
complaint
that
unwarranted.”
any
amendment
would
be
futile
or
otherwise
Carpenter v. PNC Bank, Nat. Ass’ n, No. 633 Fed.
Appx. 346, 348 (7th Cir. Feb. 3, 2016) (quotation marks omitted).
See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013) and Hukic
v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts
have broad discretion to deny leave to amend where . . . the
amendment would be futile.”).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it is frivolous.
DATED: December 5, 2016
/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
3
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?