Matthews v. Tobin

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) pltf's federal claims asserted are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (2) pltf's claims arising under Kentucky law are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (3) Court will enter appropriate judgment; (4) this matter is STRICKEN from the active docket. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 01/24/2012.(RJD)cc: COR,PRO SE PLTF(via US Mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON
ELAINE MATTHEWS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
MARY ANN TOBIN,
Defendant.

****
Plaintiff
Kentucky.

Elaine

****

Civil Action No. 12-12-JMH

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

****
is

Matthews

****
resident

a

of

Bardstown,

Matthews, proceeding without an attorney, has filed a

civil action against defendant Mary Ann Tobin, asserting claims
under the federal constitution and under Kentucky law.

[R. 1]

Matthews has paid the filing fee.
Matthews
veterinarian

alleges
Michael

that

on

O’Brien

February

transferred

18,

2011,

Briana,

a

Tobin

and

whitetail

doe, from the Bernheim Arboretum and Research Forest located in
Clermont, Kentucky, to the Broadbent Wildlife Sanctuary located
outside

Irvington,

manner.

Tobin,

a

Kentucky,
former

in

a

state

sanctuary at Broadbent in 2002.

fraudulent

and

representative,

dishonest

founded

the

Matthews indicates that she had

become “very bonded” to the doe and visited it frequently at
Bernheim,

and

was

distraught

when

it

Broadbent where she could no longer do so.

was

transferred

to

While Tobin has now

allowed Matthews to visit the doe, Matthews complains that the
doe’s living conditions are unacceptable and it is not being
properly cared for.

[R. 1 at 3-6]

Matthews indicates that some

or all of these issues regarding care of the doe have previously
been litigated in the Bullitt County Circuit Court.
7]

[R. 1 at 4,

Matthews contends that Tobin’s actions constitute cruel and

unusual

punishment

in

violation

of

the

Eighth

Amendment

tortious interference with contract under Kentucky law.
at 1-3]

and

[R. 1

Matthews seeks an order permitting her to visit the doe

twice a week and to compel that it be cared for, fed, and
watered

in

the

manner

compensatory damages.

described

in

the

complaint,

and

for

[R. 1 at 18-20]

As a preliminary matter, the plaintiff has filed this suit
in the wrong court.

Matthews’s complaint appears to allege that

Tobin

federal

violated

her

civil

rights,

conduct

actionable

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that she tortiously interfered with
a contract between herself and Bernheim Foundation.

28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(b) requires such a complaint to be filed in a judicial
district

where

(1)

at

least

one

defendant

resides,

if

all

defendants reside in the same state; (2) a substantial part of
the

events

giving

rise

to

the

claim

occurred;

or

(3)

defendant resides, if no other district provides venue.
actions

forming

the

basis

for

the

complaint

occurred

any
The
at

Broadbent’s facility in Irvington, Kentucky, which is also the

city where Tobin resides.

Irvington is located in Breckenridge

County, and hence falls within the Western District of Kentucky.
28 U.S.C. § 97(b).

Section 1391(b) therefore requires that this

action should have been filed in that court.
When a case is filed in the wrong district, the Court has
discretion to either dismiss the case or transfer it to the
proper district.

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

In the present case, the

Court has reviewed the complaint1 and will dismiss the action
because Matthew’s federal civil rights claim fails as a matter
of law and because neither this Court nor the Western District
would

possess

subject

matter

jurisdiction

over

her

tortious

interference claim.
Matthews alleges that Tobin has subjected her to cruel and
unusual

punishment.

However,

the

Eighth

Amendment’s

proscription of “Cruel and Unusual Punishments” applies only to
actions

taken

individuals.
the

by

the

government,

not

to

those

private

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that

Constitution

does

not

reach

“merely

matter how discriminatory or wrongful.”

private

conduct,

no

American Mfrs. Mut.

Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999).

1

of

Because Tobin,

A federal court may screen a fee-paid complaint filed by a
non-prisoner plaintiff and dismiss it where its allegations are
insubstantial or its claims are devoid of legal merit or are not
open to reasonable discussion.
Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477,
479 (6th Cir. 1999).

“the party charged with the deprivation,” is not “a person who
may fairly be said to be a state actor,”

Matthews cannot show a

violation of the Eighth Amendment, and her civil rights claim
fails as a matter of law.

Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S.

922, 937 (1982).
Matthews also alleges that Tobin tortiously interfered with
a contract between herself and Bernheim, a claim arising under
Kentucky law.

However, having determined that her sole federal

claim must be dismissed, Tobin’s pendent state law claim should
also be dismissed without prejudice.

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3);

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966).
also

cannot

exercise

independent

subject

matter

The Court
jurisdiction

over the claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the plaintiff and
defendant

are

diversity

of

residents

of

citizenship.

the

same

state,

The

Court

will

and

hence

therefore

lack

dismiss

Matthews’s state law claim, without prejudice to her right to
assert it in the proper forum.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s

federal

claims

asserted

pursuant

to

42

U.S.C. § 1983 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2.

Plaintiff’s

claims

arising

under

Kentucky

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3.

The Court will enter an appropriate judgment.

law

are

4.

This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket.

This the 24th day of January, 2012.