Skudnov et al v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 8/8/2011; for the reasons set forth, the court will enter a separate order of plaintiff pro se (TLB)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE BORIS NICKOLAEVICH SKUDNOV v. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11CV-307-S U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Boris Nickolaevich Skudnov initiated this “action” by filing a document styled “motion for extension of time to file responsive pleading,” a summons directed to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Housing Authority of Bowling Green, and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.1 Plaintiff’s motion states simply, “comes Boris Nickolaevich Skudnov and moves the Court for an extension of time through May 31, 2011, in which to file a responsive pleading.” It is axiomatic that federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and their powers are enumerated in Article III of the Constitution. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Hudson v. Coleman, 347 F.3d 138, 141 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[I]t is well established that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute.”). The party that seeks to invoke a federal district court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the court’s authority to hear the case. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. 1 Plaintiff also included the name of another individual, Stanislav Borisovich Skudnov, in the caption. However, only Plaintiff signed the filing. Plaintiff, a non-lawyer, cannot represent others. Since the filing is not signed by Stanislav Borisovich Skudnov, he is not considered a party to this action. Moreover, “[a] federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction over the category of claim in suit (subject-matter jurisdiction).” Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-31 (2007). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court must dismiss an action if it “determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). The dismissal should issue as soon as the Court determines that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. Plaintiff has not articulated any federal law claims or pleaded any state law claims that would meet the requirements of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In short, Plaintiff has not established any case or controversy over which this Court may exercise jurisdiction. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court will enter a separate Order of dismissal. Date: August 8, 2011 cc: Plaintiff, pro se 4411.008 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?