Ondari v. Naftal et al

Filing 3

ORDER denying as moot 2 Application on Proceed In Forma Pauperis in District Court (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 1/17/2012. (PJM) (cc: Naftal Mary Ondari) Modified on 1/17/2012 (akl).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 12-111(DSD/LIB)
Naftal Mary Ondari,
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Stella Nyan Chama Naftal
and Tom Mose,
Defendants.

This matter is before the court upon the pro se complaint and
application to proceed in forma pauperis by plaintiff Naftal Mary
Ondari.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

process

of

divorcing

Minnesota state court.1

—

Ondari divorced — or is in the

defendant

Stella

Nyanchama

Naftal

in

See Ondari v. Naftal, No. 27-FA-10-9010

(Minn. D. Ct. filed Mar. 21, 2011).

In this federal action, Ondari

seeks to prevent Naftal from using his name, and “[i]nstead use the
name of [defendant] Tom Mose whom she is staying with as a
roommate, later became boyfriend, girlfriend.” Compl. 4–5. Ondari
states that Naftal’s use of his name is “taboo to our culture and
society.”

Id. at 5.

Ondari further requests “the Federal to

investigate on the man I hosted in the house since last year May,

1

Although defendant Naftal’s name is docketed as Stella Nyan
Chama Naftal, it appears that Nyanchama is the proper spelling.

to now, who has broken the beautiful family.
Mose.”

Id.

His name is Tom

Ondari invokes federal-question jurisdiction.

Id. at

3.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
Basham, 931 F.2d 521, 522 (8th Cir. 1991).

Thomas v.

As a result, the court

must raise issues of jurisdiction sua sponte “when there is an
indication that jurisdiction is lacking.”

Id.

To invoke federal-

question jurisdiction a plaintiff must plead a cause of action
arising under federal law or the Constitution.

28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A complaint states a federal cause of action when it appears on the
face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C & W

Enters., 487 F.3d 1129, 1131 (8th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
The court liberally construes pro se complaints and will
dismiss

an

action

only

if

it

appears

beyond

doubt

that

the

plaintiff “can allege no set of facts which would support an
exercise of jurisdiction.” Sanders v. United States, 760 F.2d 869,
871 (8th Cir. 1985).

The court has studied the present complaint

and cannot identify a federal cause of action.

Were the parties

diverse, the amount in controversy is less than $75,000.
U.S.C. § 1332.

See 28

Moreover, “the whole subject of the domestic

relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the
laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.”

2

Ankenbrandt

v.

Richards,

504

U.S.

689,

703

(1992)

(citation

omitted).

Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction over this

action, and dismissal is warranted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2]

is denied as moot; and
2.

This action is dismissed.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated:

January 17, 2012
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

3