White v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Incorporated
ORDER denying 10 MOTION FOR JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO PRIVILEGE AND IMMUNITY CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (Loury, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
JESSE AND KIMBERLY WHITE,
Hon. Gerald E. Rosen
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
ORDER DENYING “MOTION FOR JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO
PRIVILEGE AND IMMUNITY CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT”
On April 9, 2013, the Court dismissed this ifp action for lack of federal subject
matter jurisdiction. On April 26, 2013, by way of a “Motion for Jurisdiction on Basis of
Contract Properties and Laws Pertaining to Contract Performance, Liability and
Interpretation,” Plaintiff Jesse White sought reconsideration of the dismissal order and
judgment. The Court denied that “Motion for Jurisdiction” on May 17, 2013. Then, on
May 29, 2013 Plaintiff filed another “Motion for Jurisdiction,” asserting that
jurisdiction for this action lies in § 1-203 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The Court
denied that Motion on June 10, 2013. Plaintiff has now filed yet a third “Motion for
Jurisdiction,” this time asserting that jurisdiction for this action arises under the
“Privilege and Immunity [sic] Clause of the 14th Amendment.”
The presence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded
complaint rule,” which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal
question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. See
Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112-113, 57 S.Ct. 96, 97-98(1936). As the
Court explained in its original order dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction,
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not alleged any violation of any provision of the United States
Constitution or any federal statute. Furthermore, no federal cause of action arises from
the facts alleged. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges only a breach of contract claim.
Plaintiff’s repeated attempts to come up with some federal law that might permit him to
proceed in federal court do not cure the deficiencies noted in his Complaint.
Furthermore, Plaintiff is not entitled to repeatedly seek reconsideration of the
Order of Dismissal. The Local Rules provide that a motion for reconsideration “must be
filed within 14 days of the date of the judgment or order.” The instant Motion was filed
more than two months after the Order of Dismissal and, hence, is untimely. Captioning it
as a “Motion for Jurisdiction” does not cure the untimeliness of what is, in essence, a
motion for reconsideration.
Moreover, even considering the merits of Plaintiff’s Motion, it would be denied.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause bars “discrimination against citizens of other
States where there is no substantial reason for the discrimination beyond the mere fact
that they are citizens of other States.” Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 396 (1948). There
are no allegations of discrimination in Plaintiff’s Complaint let alone any claims that he
was discriminated against by a citizen of another state simply because he is a citizen of
the State of Michigan.
The Court has been patient with Plaintiff and has not chastised his previous
frivolous “Motions for Jurisdiction,” but will not condone any further such frivolous
filings. Plaintiff is therefore put on notice that the Court will impose sanctions pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1927 if he files any more such frivolous motions.
For all of the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Jurisdiction Pursuant to
Privilege and Immunity Clause of 14th Amendment” [Dkt. # 10] is DENIED.
s/Gerald E. Rosen
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: June 27, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on June 27, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Case Manager, (313) 234-5135
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?