Martin El
Filing
6
OPINION and ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case No. 15-mc-50984
IN RE: KENNEDITH FITZGERALD MARTIN EL,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
Petitioner.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING MATTER
On July 14, 2015, Kennedith Fitzgerald Martin El (a/k/a “Kennedith Fitzgerald Miller
Martin”), filed a plethora of documents including an “Affidavit of Truth” [1], “Constructive
Legal Notice-UCC-1 Registration Declaration of Sovereignty Ultimate Claim to Legal Freedom
Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal” [2], Notice of
Entitlement Right UCC-1 Registeration [sic]” [3], “Copyright Notice of Commerical TradeName/Mark-UCC-1 Registration Declaration of Sovereignty Ultimate Claim to Legal Freedom
Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal” [4], and a “Special
Power of Attorney in Fact and Declaration of Representative” [5].
Having reviewed all of Petitioner’s filings, the Court has determined that federal subject
matter jurisdiction is lacking. The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they have
only such jurisdiction as is defined by Article III of the United States Constitution and granted by
Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Fisher v.
Peters, 249 F.3d 433, 444 (6th Cir. 2001). As provided in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, federal
courts have jurisdiction (1) over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“federal question jurisdiction”), and (2) over civil actions
-1-
between completely diverse parties where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“diversity jurisdiction”). Federal courts have a duty to consider their
subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case and may raise the issue sua sponte. See In re
Lewis, 398 F.3d 735, 739 (6th Cir. 2005). Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3)
requires the Court to dismiss an action if, at any time, it determines it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Here, Petitioner neither raises a federal cause of action nor asserts a state cause of action
involving diverse parties that exceeds $75,000. This Court therefore lacks subject matter
jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 6, 2015
Detroit, MI
/s/Gershwin A Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge
-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?