BROWN v. INDY GO

Filing 4

Entry Dismissing Action for Lack of Jurisdiction - The plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is granted. This is not a case where the jurisdictional deficiencies could be remedied through the filing of an amended complaint. Accordingly, there is no reason to delay the entry of final judgment. This action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/9/2015. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

JOSEPHINE BROWN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
INDY GO,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01923-TWP-DML

Entry Dismissing Action for Lack of Jurisdiction
I.
The plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is granted.
II.
Plaintiff Josephine Brown is a resident of Indiana. Defendant IndyGo is a public
transportation corporation formed and operating under Indiana Code § 36–9–4. See Indianapolis
Pub. Transp. Corp. v. Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 40 N.E.3d 536, 537 (Ind. T.C. 2015). Ms. Brown
alleges that on April 28, 2015, she was riding the bus to the store when a car hit the bus. She was
“shaken up” and taken to Community East Hospital for treatment. Ms. Brown has tried to resolve
this matter with Indy Go directly without success. She seeks more than $75,000.00 in damages.
III.
“Subject-matter jurisdiction means adjudicatory competence over a category of disputes.”
Wisconsin Valley Imp. Co. v. United States, 569 F.3d 331, 333 (7th Cir. 2009)(citing Kontrick v.
Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004), and Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005). Thus, a court has
subject-matter jurisdiction if it has the “authority to decide the case either way.” The Fair v. Kohler

Die & Specialty Co., 228 U.S. 22, 25 (1913) (Holmes, J.). “Subject-matter jurisdiction is the first
question in every case, and if the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction it must proceed no
further.” State of Illinois v. City of Chicago, 137 F.3d 474, 478 (7th Cir. 1998).
This federal court lacks jurisdiction to decide whether IndyGo is liable under state law to
Ms. Brown for its role in the bus accident which occurred while she was on board. Ms. Brown’s
complaint suggests that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over her claims, but she is mistaken.
This is because a district court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction if the plaintiff shares the same
state citizenship as any one of the defendants. Whalen v. Carter, 954 F.2d 1087, 1094 (5th Cir.
1992) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 7 U.S. 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806)); see also Hart
v. FedEx Ground Package Sys. Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 676 (7th Cir. 2006). In this case, both the
plaintiff and defendant are citizens of Indiana.
When it is determined that a court lacks jurisdiction, its only course of action is to announce
that fact and dismiss the case. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94
(1998)(“’Jurisdiction is 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.’”)(quoting Ex parte
McCardle, 7 Wall, 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868)).
This is not a case where the jurisdictional deficiencies could be remedied through the filing
of an amended complaint. Accordingly, there is no reason to delay the entry of final judgment.
This action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall
now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 12/9/2015

Distribution:
JOSEPHINE BROWN
3208 E. MICHIGAN STREET
Indianapolis, IN 46201