Thomas v. Vampelt et al
OPINION AND ORDER: This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 8/14/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ksp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
WAYMAN D. THOMAS, JR.,
ALLEN VAMPELT, SR., and ALLEN
CAUSE NO.: 4:18-CV-24-TLS
OPINION AND ORDER
This case began when Plaintiff Wayman D. Thomas, Jr., a prisoner proceeding pro se,
filed a Complaint [ECF No. 1] that did not properly allege that this Court had jurisdiction over
the claims presented. Thomas was granted leave to amend, and has now filed an Amended
Complaint [ECF No. 4]. “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, a 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. Further, federal courts are duty bound to police their own jurisdiction. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction,
the court must dismiss the action.”).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, see Johnson v. U.S. Office of Personnel
Management, 783 F.3d 655, 660 (7th Cir. 2015), and the Plaintiff has the burden to establish
subject matter jurisdiction. See Lee v. City of Chi., 330 F.3d 456, 468 (7th Cir. 2003). In civil
actions, federal district courts most commonly exercise federal question jurisdiction or diversity
jurisdiction over cases or controversies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have
original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (“The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of 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[.]”).
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants stole his personal property and threatened him.
The Plaintiff describes the Defendants as personal acquaintances who own a car dealership. The
Defendants are not government employees, and the Plaintiff has not alleged that the Defendants
acted under color of State law when they took his property or threatened him. This is a
requirement to proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Plaintiff has not identified another federal
statute or theory that establishes federal question jurisdiction under these facts. As such, the
Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this case.
Additionally, there are not allegations concerning the citizenship of either the Plaintiff or
the Defendants in the Amended Complaint—although it appears that all parties are citizens of
Indiana—and as such the Court cannot continue under diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claims, and this case must be
dismissed. The case will be dismissed without prejudice so the Plaintiff may pursue these claims
in Indiana state court.
For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED on August 14, 2018.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
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?