UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. COUNTRYMARK REFINING AND LOGISTICS, LLC

Filing 6

***PLEASE DISREGARD - DOCKETED IN ERROR*** Entry and Order Dismissing Action - The plaintiff's renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis 7 is denied because his request for that status was granted on February 13, 2013. The amended complain t does not contain an allegation which supports a plausible claim for relief sufficient to invoke the court's limited jurisdiction. Even if the court could conclude otherwise, moreover, the action would be dismissed for the same reasons as explained in Baxter v. WTRV TV, et al. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 3/11/2013.(RSF) Modified on 3/11/2013 (RSF).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
RONALD BAXTER, JR.
Plaintiff,
vs.
RAFAEL A. SANCHEZ, Lawyer,
Client-lawyer/Co-worker, and
RAFAEL A. SANCHEZ, Reporter,
News reporter channel 6 news,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:13-cv-0030-WTL-WGH

Entry and Order Dismissing Action
I.
A.
The plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis [7] is denied
because his request for that status was granted on February 13, 2013.
B.
The plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h) and the
amended complaint filed on February 22, 2013, must be screened pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
A person seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction has the burden of proof to
demonstrate at the outset that the federal court has the authority to hear the case.
See McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Indiana, 298 U.S. 178, 182-89
(1936). The Seventh Circuit has explained:
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction . . . . 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.

Smart v. Local 702 Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802 (7th Cir.
2009).
The amended complaint does not contain an allegation which supports a
plausible claim for relief sufficient to invoke the court’s limited jurisdiction. Even if
the court could conclude otherwise, moreover, the action would be dismissed for the
same reasons as explained in Baxter v. WTRV TV, et al., No. 2:12-cv-199-WTL-WGH
(S.D.Ind. Sept. 19, 2012).
Although the dismissal of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) is now
mandatory, Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002),
this disposition is solely as to any federal claim the plaintiff may believe he is
asserting. Any pendent claim under Indiana state law is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. In the circumstances of this--as is the general rule when federal claims
are dismissed prior to trial--the pendent state law claims will be dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) ("in the
usual case in which all federal law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of
factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine--judicial economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity--will point toward declining to exercise
jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims") (citing United Mine Workers of
America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)).
II.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

03/11/2013
Date: __________________
Distribution:
Ronald Baxter, Jr.
2204-28
Putnamville Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
1946 West U.S. Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana