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)

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