Murphy v. Barrister Global Network Inc et al

Filing 5

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that this matter be, and is hereby Dismissed, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1). Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 10/18/2011. (CMM)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA PAUL L. MURPHY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO.11-535-BAJ-SCR BARRISTER GLOBAL NETWORK, INC., ET AL ORDER Pro se plaintiff, Paul L. Murphy, filed the complaint in this matter on August 2, 2011, and was granted in forma pauperis status of September 30, 2011. The complaint names as defendants, Barrister Global Network, Inc., Hewlett Packard Corp., Georgette Roussell, Jared Bowers, and Isaac Reenstien. On September 30, 2011, the Magistrate Judge found that plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege facts to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge, however, noted that “[t]he only apparent basis for subject matter jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Accordingly, plaintiff was ordered to amend the complaint, within fourteen days, to properly allege the citizenship of the defendants and to clarify whether he intended to file the complaint in this Court or in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The Order further stated that “failure to comply with this order may result in the case being dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or improper venue . . . .” (Doc. 4). The deadline to comply with the Order of September 30, 2011 has passed, and the record reveals that plaintiff has failed to comply or otherwise respond to the Order. A federal district court is a court of limited jurisdiction and can only exercise that jurisdiction which is statutorily conferred upon it by Congress. Margin v. Sea-Land Services, Inc., 812 F.2d 973, 976 (5th Cir. 1987). A complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to hear the case. Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). The burden of proof on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction. Strain v. Harrelson Rubber Co., 742 F.2d 888, 889 (5th Cir. 1984). For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to establish this Court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly: IT IS ORDERED that this matter be, and is, hereby DISMISSED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 18, 2011. ____________________________ BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 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?