JOHNSON et al v. GREEN VALLEY CARE CENTER et al

Filing 4

ENTRY Dismissing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The assessment of even an initial partial filing fee is not feasible at this time. The clerk is directed to terminate Penny Wright, Judy Broshears, Dale Wright and Douglas Wright as plaintiffs on the docket. Ms. Johnson's complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff shall have through November 9, 2016, in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue. See Entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/28/2016 (copy mailed to plaintiff). (LBT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION

JACQUELINE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GREEN VALLEY CARE CENTER,
BILLIE FAYE MOSLEY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:16-cv-00184-TWP-DML

Entry Dismissing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
I. Filing Fee
Plaintiff Jacqueline Johnson’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt 2) is granted. The
assessment of even an initial partial filing fee is not feasible at this time.
II. Proper Plaintiff
This action was filed by Jacqueline Johnson on behalf of herself and four of her siblings.
Ms. Johnson does not allege that she is an attorney, and a non-attorney may not represent others
in district court. See Georgakis v. Illinois State University, 722 F.3d 1075, 1077 (7th Cir. 2013)
(“A nonlawyer can’t handle a case on behalf of anyone except himself.”); Lewis v. Lenc-Smith
Mfg. Co., 784 F.2d 829, 830 (7th Cir. 1986) (“[I]t is clear than an individual may appear in the
federal courts only pro se or through counsel.”); Bronk v. Utschig, No. 12-cv-832-WMC, 2012
WL 6586485 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 17, 2012) (“The right to litigate pro se is personal to each individual
and does not grant authority to prosecute an action in federal court on behalf of others. In other
words, a party can represent himself or be represented by an attorney, but cannot be represented

by a nonlawyer in federal court.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Accordingly, the other individuals identified
as plaintiffs in this action shall not be recognized as such. The clerk is directed to terminate
Penny Wright, Judy Broshears, Dale Wright and Douglas Wright as plaintiffs on the docket.
III. The Complaint
Ms. Johnson alleges that her mother’s rights under the “Federal Reform Act” were
“seriously violated” by Billie Faye Mosley (Ms. Johnson’s half-sister) and Green Valley Care
Center. Ms. Mosely was appointed to serve as the mother’s guardian by a state court and was
involved in the mother’s placement and care at Green Valley Care Center. Ms. Johnson alleges
that her mother was abused at the care center and that her death was caused by mistreatment and
improper drug prescriptions.
IV. Jurisdiction
Subject to esoteric exceptions not implicated by the circumstances of this case, “[a] federal
court may exercise jurisdiction where: 1) the requirements for diversity jurisdiction set forth in 28
U.S.C. § 1332 are met; or 2) the matter arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Barringer-Willis v. Healthsource North Carolina, 14 F.
Supp. 2d 780, 781 (E.D.N.C. 1998). “’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)). The
Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that “the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden
of demonstrating its existence.” See Hart v. FedEx Ground Pkg. Sys. Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 679 (7th
Cir. 2006).

Here, there is no allegation of conduct which could support the existence of federal
question jurisdiction. See Williams v. Aztar Ind. Gaming Corp., 351 F.3d 294, 298 (7th Cir.
2003)(explaining federal courts may exercise federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff’s right
to relief is created by or depends on a federal statute or constitutional provision). Ms. Johnson
suggests that her mother’s rights under the “Federal Reform Act” were violated, but the Court
could not locate a law by this title. In any event, the question is whether Ms. Johnson’s federal
rights were violated, not whether her mother’s rights were violated. Similarly, there is no allegation
of diversity of citizenship. See Denlinger v. Brennan, 87 F.3d 214, 217 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding
that failure to include allegations of citizenship requires dismissal of complaint based on diversity
jurisdiction).
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)). That is the case here. The complaint fails to
contain a legally viable claim over which this Court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction and
this action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
V. Opportunity to Show Cause
Ms. Johnson’s complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff shall have
through November 9, 2016, in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Entry
should not issue. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1022 (7th Cir. 2013)
(“Without at least an opportunity to amend or to respond to an order to show cause, an IFP

applicant’s case could be tossed out of court without giving the applicant any timely notice or
opportunity to be heard to clarify, contest, or simply request leave to amend.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 10/28/2016

Distribution:
JACQUELINE JOHNSON
PO Box 542
Scottsburg, IN 47170