Buckner v. Harper

Filing 8

ORDER SUMMARILIY DISMISSING 1 COMPLAINT. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (SBur)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
_____________________________________________________________________
CLEINTE BUCKNER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-12684

KIMBERLY HARPER,
Defendant,
/
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT
In its Opinion and Order entered September 27, 2016, the court directed Plaintiff
Cliente Buckner to show cause why his civil rights complaint should not be summarily
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. # 6.) The court ordered Plaintiff to
respond by November 22, 2016. (Id.) Plaintiff filed his response on December 21, 2016,
(Dkt. # 7), and did not explain his tardiness.
In any event, Plaintiff’s filing does not show that the court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this action. As the court explained in its prior opinion and order, Plaintiff
cannot sustain a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Kimberly Harper
based on her allegations and testimony against them. (Dkt. # 6.) Plaintiff’s other claims
are state law claims that do not involve a substantial question of federal law. See Ford
v. Hamilton Inv., Inc., 29 F.3d 225, 278 (6th Cir. 1994). As a result, nothing in Plaintiff’s
complaint suggests that his case “arises under” federal law for the purposes of federal
question subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Neither does it appear to be

between citizens of different states, so the court lacks diversity jurisdiction as well. 28
U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiff’s untimely response does not address these issues. Rather, Plaintiff’s
response simply restates his malicious prosecution claim and provides numerous
citations to Oregon courts discussing Oregon law. (See Dkt. # 7.) Thus, the court
concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and, in light of its
continuing obligation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the court must
dismiss the case. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. # 1) is DISMISSED for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 17, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, January 17, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Shawna C. Burns
Case Manager Generalist
[phone]

Q:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\16-12684.BUCKNER.summary.dismissal.tlh.wpd

2