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 dismissal.cc: plaintiff pro se (TLB)

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