SEELEY v. SHELL'S
ENTRY and ORDER - A case over which the court lacks jurisdiction must be dismissed. That is the disposition required here. The several ancillary motions 16 , 25 , 26 , and 27 are each denied as moot and Seeley's request for the issuance of a subpoena to obtain a criminal record of Hayward E. Ford 28 is of no effect and likewise denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/2/2013. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
CLARENCE W. SEELEY,
Entry and Order Dismissing Action
Clarence W. Seeley filed this civil action on November 29, 2012. He sues
“Shell’s” asserting a claim that the owner of the Shell Gas Station in Connersville
Indiana should be held liable for the actions of a third-shift employee who allegedly
harassed and physically injured Seeley on June 18, 2012.
Subject-matter jurisdiction is a synonym for adjudicatory competence. Morrison v.
National Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2876–77 (2010). Seeley was previously
informed by this court that “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,” Smart v. Local 702 Intern. Broth. of Elec.
Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802 (7th Cir. 2009)(citing 28 U.S.C. '' 1331-32), and was given
a period of time in which to identify the basis of the court’s jurisdiction over his claims.
[Dkt. 13]. “‘A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the
court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.=” Home Builders
Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting
Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1187 (2d Cir. 1996)).
Seeley asserts that this court has federal question jurisdiction under various
statutes involving labor organizations, [dkt. 15], but the Complaint’s allegations assert a
state law tort and undermine such assertion. See Williams v. Aztar Ind. Gaming Corp.,
351 F.3d 294, 298 (7th Cir. 2003)(explaining federal courts may exercise federalquestion jurisdiction when a plaintiff=s right to relief is created by or depends on a
federal statute or constitutional provision). Furthermore, there is also no allegation of
citizenship that would support the exercise of diversity jurisdiction.
A case over which the court lacks jurisdiction must be dismissed. Steel Co. v.
Citizens for a Better Environment, 118 S. Ct. 1003, 1012 (1998); Cook v. Winfrey, 141
F.3d 322, 324-26 (7th Cir. 1998). That is the disposition required here. The several
ancillary motions , , , and  are each denied as moot and Seeley’s request
for the issuance of a subpoena to obtain a criminal record of Hayward E. Ford  is of
no effect and likewise denied.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Clarence Wayne Seeley
WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
5501 South 1100 West
WESTVILLE, IN 46391
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
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?