KETNER v. HOOSIER TRUCK & TRAILER SERVICES et al

Filing 73

ENTRY AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION - The Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 26 ) is GRANTED. Any claims asserted under Indiana state law are likewise dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). All pending motions (Dtks. 28 , 31 , 34 , 41 , 54 , 55 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 66 , 70 and 72 ) are DENIED AS MOOT. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/19/2014. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
DANIEL J. KETNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOOSIER TRUCK & TRAILER
SERVICES, and KATHY A. SCHULTETI,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:13-cv-0440-TWP-TAB

ENTRY AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
The matter is before the Court on Defendant Kathy A. Schulteti’s Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction (Dkt. 26). For the reasons stated below, the Motion must be GRANTED.
“[J]urisdiction is power to act.” Bailey v. Sharp, 782 F.2d 1366, 1369 (7th Cir. 1986)
(Easterbrook, concurring). It is adjudicatory competence. Johnson v. CSX Transp., Inc., 343 F.
App’x 138, 139 (7th Cir. 2009). Subject matter jurisdiction “defines the court=s authority to hear
a given type of case,” United States v. Morton, 467 U.S. 822, 828 (1984), and is the first question
in every case. Sherman v. Community Consol. Sch. Dist. 21 of Wheeling Twp., 980 F.2d 437,
440 (7th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 2109 (1994).
“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is the
power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is
that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Federal courts “have only the power that is authorized by Article III of the Constitution
and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto,” Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist.,
475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). “Jurisdiction is established when the complaint narrates a claim that

arises under federal law (28 U.S.C. § 1331) or that satisfies the requirements of the diversity
jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332).” Bovee v. Broom, 732 F.3d 743, 744 (7th Cir. 2013).
Despite having had the opportunity and being directed to do so, Mr. Ketner has failed to
identify a plausible basis for the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in his
complaint. Because Mr. Ketner has failed in these respects, the action must be dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction. The Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 26) is GRANTED. Any claims asserted under
Indiana state law are likewise dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
All pending motions (Dtks. 28, 31, 34, 41, 54, 55, 60, 62, 63, 66, 70 and 72) are DENIED AS
MOOT.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.

SO ORDERED.
02/19/2014
Date: __________________

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

DISTRIBUTION:
Daniel J. Ketner, #199397
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 South Old US Highway 41
Carlisle, Indiana 47838

Michael A. Beason
CHRISTOPHER & TAYLOR
[e-mail]

2