Howard v. Miller
OPINION AND ORDER; The Court DISMISSES the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 4/20/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(mlc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-240
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Prisoner Complaint,
filed by Plaintiff, Troy Howard, a pro se prisoner, on March 27,
For the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES the
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (DE 1).
Troy Howard (“Howard”), is currently an inmate at the Miami
Correctional Facility (“Miami”). He was originally arrested and
held at the Warren County Jail. Howard brings suit against Bill
Miller, the Warren County Sheriff, for transporting him from the
Warren County Jail to Miami due to his diabetes. Howard claims
Sheriff Miller’s actions violated Indiana Code § 35-33-11-1, which
Upon motion by the [sheriff]: alleging that an
inmate in a county jail awaiting trial is in danger of
serious bodily injury or death or represents a
substantial threat to the safety of others, the court
shall determine whether the inmate is in imminent danger
of serious bodily injury or death, or represents a
substantial threat to the safety of others. If the court
finds that the inmate is in danger of serious bodily
injury or death or represents a substantial threat to the
safety of others, it shall order the sheriff to transfer
the inmate to another county jail or to a facility of the
department of correction designated by the commissioner
of the department as suitable for the confinement of that
prisoner and provided that space is available. For the
purpose of this chapter, an inmate is not considered in
danger of serious bodily injury or death due to an
illness or other medical condition.
Ind. Code § 35-33-11-1.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review 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
complaint states a claim, the court applies the same standard as
when deciding a motion to dismiss under FEDERAL RULE
12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir.
2006). To survive dismissal, a complaint must state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Indiana Univ.
Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009). “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 603. The
court must bear in mind, however, that “[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).
Because jurisdiction is the first question in every federal
case, Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541
(1986), the court must address whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction. This court has jurisdiction over state law claims,
“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.
The complaint does not allege, and it is implausible to
find, that the parties have complete diversity of citizenship.
Indeed, it appears as though both parties are citizens of Indiana.
ECF 1; ECF 3 at 2. As such, this case must be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
For the reasons set forth above reasons, the court DISMISSES
the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
DATED: April 20, 2017
/s/RUDY LOZANO, 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?