Booker v. Booker

Filing 4

ORDER Denying as Moot 3 Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs filed by Charles Booker filed by Charles Booker (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 3/25/2013. (PJM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 13-646(DSD/SER)
Charles Booker,
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Ursula E. Booker,
Defendant.

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

Based upon a review of the file, record and proceedings

herein, and for the following reasons, the court denies the motion.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
Basham, 931 F.2d 521, 522 (8th Cir. 1991).
raise

issues

of

jurisdiction

sua

As such, the court must

sponte

indication that jurisdiction is lacking.”

Thomas v.

“when

there

Id. at 523.

is

an

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).
To invoke federal-question jurisdiction, the face of a wellpleaded complaint must contain a cause of action arising under
federal law or the Constitution.

Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C & W

Enters., Inc., 487 F.3d 1129, 1131 (8th Cir. 2007); see also 28
U.S.C. § 1331.

In the present action, plaintiff alleges that

federal-question jurisdiction is present because he “was swindled
out of tax refund by defendant [Ursula E. Booker] in 2009 and
2010.”

Compl. ¶ 6.

question.1

This allegation does not present a federal

Moreover, even if the parties were diverse, diversity

jurisdiction is lacking because the alleged amount in controversy
is less than $75,000.

See id. ¶ 4; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332

(requiring amount in controversy to exceed $75,000).

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. 3]

is denied as moot; and
2.

This action is dismissed.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated:

March 25, 2013
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

1

In so stating, the court acknowledges that federal-question
jurisdiction can be present when the resolution of a state-law
cause of action “depends upon the construction or application of
[federal law].” Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g &
Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 313 (2005) (alteration in original) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). In such instances, federal
jurisdiction is proper only when “it appears that some substantial,
disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of one of
the well-pleaded state claims, or that ... [a] claim is ‘really’
one of federal law.”
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers
Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983). No such circumstances are
present in the instant action.
2