Brooks v. Danglo

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PATRICIA BROOKS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-11357
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

v.
ROCA DANGLO,
Defendant.
__________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER (1) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND (2)
DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND FOR SERVICE BY U.S. MARSHAL AND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff Patricia Brooks, proceeding pro se, filed the instant lawsuit along with an
application to proceed in forma pauperis and for service by the U.S. Marshal and motion
for appointment of counsel. Like the several other complaints that Plaintiff has filed in
this District over the years– including two filed on the same date as the present matter–
Plaintiff’s handwritten complaint is mostly illegible.1 It is evident from Plaintiff’s
complaint, however, that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. A court may sua
sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3); McLaughlin v. Cotner, 193 F.3d 410, 412 (6th Cir. 1999).

1

On the same date that the instant complaint was filed, two additional complaints
from Plaintiff were filed: Civil Case No. 13-11358 (assigned to the Honorable Marianne
Battani) and Civil Case No. 13-11359 (assigned to the Honorable Terrence Berg).
Plaintiff has filed previous lawsuits in this District which have been dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and/or because the claims alleged therein were frivolous: Civil
Case No. 11-13229 (Rosen, C.J.); 11-13217 (Cox, J.); and 10-10872 (Hood, J.).

On the cover sheet submitted with her complaint, Plaintiff checked the box
indicating that the basis of jurisdiction is “diversity.” (ECF No. 1.) The facts showing
the existence of jurisdiction, however, must be affirmatively alleged in her complaint.
See McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S. Ct. 780, 785
(1936); Cincinnati Sch. Dist. v. Bd. of Educ., No. 04-4258, 2005 WL 6781829, at *3 (6th
Cir. Oct. 17, 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; Bd. of Trustees of Painesville Twp. v. City of
Painseville, 200 F.3d 396, 398 (6th Cir. 1999); Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Express
Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1248 (6th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of such facts.
Diversity jurisdiction exists “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between - (1) citizens of different
states . . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). While it appears from Plaintiff’s complaint that she
lives in Missouri and presumably is a citizen of that state, the citizenship of Defendant
Roca Danglo is not stated or suggested. Moreover, the facts alleged do not suggest that
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Nor do the facts suggest that Plaintiff is
asserting claims arising under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (providing that “[t]he
district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis and for service on the U.S. Marshall and motion for appointment of counsel are

DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated: March 28, 2013

Copy to:
Patricia Brooks
3107 Elmwood
Kansas City, MO 64128

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE