Brown v. Maryland National Processing Center

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 14 15 17 , 16 ORDERED that plaintiffs post-dismissal motions to reopen her case [Doc. #14 and #15] are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #16 and #17] are DENIED AS MOOT.. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 6/13/13. (CEL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
GLORIA BLAIR BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARYLAND NATIONAL
PROCESSING CENTER, U.S.
DEPT. OF HOMELAND
SECURITY (FEMA),
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV1012 JCH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are several post-dismissal, post-appeal motions submitted
by plaintiff, including a motion to reopen her case. For the following reasons, the
Court will deny plaintiff’s motions.
In June of 2012, plaintiff file a pro se complaint in this Court, as well as a
motion seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and after a review
of her complaint, dismissed this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) for lack
of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff, a citizen of the state of Indiana, brought this action against “the
Maryland National Processing Center, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,

FEMA,” alleging that FEMA failed to assist her with the “roofing” on her property
in St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiff sought monetary damages and “repair, take money
that was paid out, ins. too.”
In her complaint, plaintiff had failed to state the grounds for filing the action
in Federal Court. Moreover, as a result of the limited allegations contained in the
complaint, there was no indication that the instant action arose under the
Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, thus, federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was inapplicable. Furthermore, even liberally
construing the complaint as brought under § 1332, the Court could not find that
diversity existed. The amount in controversy was unspecified and plaintiff had
failed to properly allege an actual defendant or diversity of citizenship. On appeal,
the Eighth Circuit upheld this Court’s Rule 12(h)(3) dismissal.
On June 10, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen this matter, attaching a
new complaint to her motion that is essentially a replica of her first complaint in
this action. The new complaint names as a defendant the “Maryland National
Processing Center, U.S. Department of Court, Eastern District of, Homeland
Security, FEMA,” and simply states that plaintiff is refiling her action for “the
property of [her] building in St. Louis MO. 63133.” Plaintiff, still a citizen of
Indiana, states in the body of the complaint that FEMA still is failing to assist her
-2-

with the roof on her property in St. Louis. As plaintiff’s allegations have not
substantially changed, the Court will decline to reopen a matter which it has
already stated it lacked jurisdiction over in a prior Memorandum and Order.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s post-dismissal motions to
reopen her case [Doc. #14 and #15] are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #16 and #17] are
DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated this 13th day of June, 2013.

/s/Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-