Wilson v. Lippert Components Inc

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER: DENYING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Michael A Wilson. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the complaint 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and this matter will be CLOSED. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 6/8/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MICHAEL A. WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
LIPPERT COMPONENTS INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:17CV399-PPS

OPINION AND ORDER
Michael A. Wilson, representing himself pro se, has filed a complaint [DE 1] and an
application to proceed in forma pauperis, that is, requesting to file his lawsuit without prepaying
costs or fees [DE 2]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915, indigent litigants have an opportunity to
proceed without prepayment of fees, which prevents poverty from becoming an obstacle to the
adjudication of legitimate claims in the federal courts. But, pursuant to §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a
court must dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis if it determines that the case is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief. If a plaintiff "pleads facts that show his suit is . . .
without merit, he has pleaded himself out of court." Tregenza v. Great American
Communications Co., 12 F.3d 717, 718 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1085 (1994).
Wilson has made use of the court’s form Complaint for a Civil Case Alleging Breach of
Contract. Wilson is suing his former employer, defendant Lippert Components Inc., alleging
that the wrongful termination of his employment breached an employment agreement between
them. As the form complaint indicates, subject matter jurisdiction over a breach of contract
claim brought in federal court is based on 28 U.S.C. §1332 and its concept of diversity of

citizenship. For the court to have jurisdiction over Wilson’s claim, one of the requirements is
that he and the defendant he is suing must be “citizens” of different states. As Wilson has
indicated in the “Basis for Jurisdiction” section of his complaint, however, both he and defendant
Lippert Components are citizens of Indiana. This circumstances means that this federal court
cannot exercise jurisdiction over Wilson’s case, and the complaint must be dismissed (although
without prejudice to being refiled in another court in which jurisdiction might be proper).
Though it is usually necessary to permit a plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended
complaint when a case is dismissed sua sponte, see Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th
Cir. 2013), that is unnecessary where the amendment would be futile. Hukic v. Aurora Loan
Services, 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts have broad discretion to deny leave to
amend where . . . the amendment would be futile.”) Such is the case here. No amendment could
permit Wilson’s breach of contract claim to proceed in federal court. The lack of jurisdiction
requires the dismissal of the case as legally frivolous under §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
ACCORDINGLY:
Plaintiff Michael A. Wilson’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs [DE
2] is DENIED.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the complaint [DE 1] is DISMISSED without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and
this matter will be CLOSED.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: June 8, 2017

/s/ Philip P. Simon
Judge
United States District Court

2