Ramsey v. Central Bank of St. Louis

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 8/14/2012. (KSM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
EDNA RAMSEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRAL BANK OF ST. LOUIS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV1135 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of this action for subject matter jurisdiction. The
Court previously found that subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking, and the Court ordered
Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed under Rule 12(h)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Court has
jurisdiction over this matter, and therefore, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.
Plaintiff claims she is bringing this case under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution and the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). The onlynamed defendant is Central
Bank of St. Louis, and Plaintiff’s sole allegation is “Defendant CENTRAL BANK OF ST.
LOUIS, [sic] CONSPIRED WITH THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS TO PUT Plaintiff OUT OF
BUSINESS, [sic] AND TO EXTORT THE BUILDING AND PLACE OF BUSINESS
LOCATED AT 4001-4009 GOODFELLOW, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI-FROM [sic] OUR
OWNERSHIP, DISPOSING OF ALL INVENTORY AND EQUIPMENT.”
Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states: “If the court determines at
any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
A court does not obtain subject-matter jurisdiction just because a Plaintiff raises
a federal question in his or her complaint. If the asserted basis of federal
jurisdiction is patently meritless, then dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is

appropriate. Because this is a facial rather than a factual challenge to jurisdiction,
[the court] determine[s] whether the asserted jurisdictional basis is patently
meritless by looking to the face of the complaint and drawing all reasonable
inferences in favor of the Plaintiff.
Biscanin v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. 407 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
The allegations in the complaint are legally frivolous, and therefore, patently meritless
under Biscanin. Plaintiff maynot bring a civil rights action against Defendant because Defendant
is not a state actor and there are no non-conclusory allegations regarding the alleged conspiracy
with the City of St. Louis. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Mershon v. Beasely, 994 F.2d 449, 451 (8th
Cir. 1993) (conspiracy). Moreover, there are no allegations in the complaint pertaining to the
requirements of the TILA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a) (purpose of TILA is “to assure a meaningful
disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various
credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit . . .”).
Moreover, the Court has reviewed the motions and documents filed by Plaintiff
subsequent to the show cause order, and the Court finds that none of these papers demonstrate
that subject matter jurisdiction exists.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Dated this 14th day of August, 2012.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-