Bey v. Linville
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action will be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 8/31/12. (TRC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
No. 4:12CV1462 FRB
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of plaintiff’s complaint. Having found
that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter, the action will be dismissed. See
Plaintiff brings this action for violations of his civil rights against defendant Doug
Linville. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Linville, who appears to be the owner of a
towing business, towed plaintiff’s vehicle at the behest of the Ferguson Police
Department and then “refused” to give the vehicle back to plaintiff without a release from
the Police Department and payment of a fine. Plaintiff claims that defendant’s actions are
in violation of his rights under the “federal UCC laws,” and he asserts that defendant
cannot lawfully touch his property without his consent. Central to plaintiff’s assertions
seems to be his belief that he is a Moor and therefore immune from state and federal law.
At the outset, the Court notes that plaintiff has failed to state the grounds for filing
the instant action in Federal Court. Liberally construing the complaint as being brought
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the Court will dismiss the action, without prejudice, for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. The amount in controversy is unspecified, and plaintiff has
insufficiently alleged diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Moreover, the instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties
of the United States, and thus, federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
is inapplicable. Although plaintiff summarily alleges violations of his civil rights, the
named defendant, an owner of a towing facility, is not alleged, nor appears to be, a state
actor, and thus, there can be no cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action will be DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 31st day of August, 2012.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?