Ewing v. Surrogue

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER terminating case. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 03/12/2014. Mailed to pro se party Madeline S. Ewing by regular mail. (aa)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS MADELINE S. EWING ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JACKIE SURROGUE, ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________) Case No.: 14-2098-EFM MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff seeks to commence and proceed with her case without prepayment of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915. The United States Magistrate Judge has filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion be denied, and the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the case was filed under claim of diversity jurisdiction even though both plaintiff and defendant are alleged to be citizens of Missouri. Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, pleading both the merits of her claims for justice, and averring that the events took place in Kansas City, Kansas. The later, the Court assumes, is designed to address the jurisdictional deficiencies of a case brought claiming diversity jurisdiction when both parties are from the same state. Diversity jurisdiction does not concern itself with the location of the events at issue. Such location is relevant to certain matters, but not to the existence of diversity jurisdiction. That concept relates only to the parties residence, or citizenship, among the various states. Because the parties here are both citizens of Missouri, their citizenship is not diverse. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear this case. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) is ADOPTED, and this case therefore DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 12th day of March, 2014. ERIC F. MELGREN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-

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?