SHANNON v. SHANNON et al

Filing 5

ENTRY - Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The complaint appears to assert only state law claims against non-diverse parties. The plaintiff shall have through September 24, 2012, in which to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/24/2012. Copy Mailed. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
MARK A. SHANNON,
Plaintiff,

vs.
DIONE SHANNON, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-1107-TWP-TAB

Entry Granting In Forma Pauperis Status
and Directing Plaintiff to Show Cause
I.
The plaintiff=s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. 2] is granted.
II.
A district court possesses only the jurisdiction conferred to it by Congress.
See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966). Congress has conferred
subject matter jurisdiction on the district courts only in cases that raise a federal
question and cases in which there is diversity of citizenship among the parties. See
28 U.S.C. '' 1331-32. Because the limited jurisdiction of a federal court is not to be
judicially expanded, the presumption is that "a cause lies outside this limited
jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party
asserting jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994).
The complaint appears to assert only state law claims against non-diverse
parties. The plaintiff shall have through September 24, 2012, in which to show
cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

08/24/2012
Date: __________________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Mark A. Shannon
219451
Plainfield Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
727 Moon Road
Plainfield, IN 46168