Keys v. The State of Missouri

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on March 5, 2013. (MCB)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION SIDNEY KEYS, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:13CV00361 ERW MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for review of plaintiff’s complaint for subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff brings this action under the Due Process Clause for alleged violations of this civil rights. Plaintiff alleges, in a wholly conclusory manner, that several entities violated his civil rights. For example, plaintiff claims that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education violated his rights, and plaintiff complains that the family courts in St. Louis have violated his rights in relation to a custody battle. He complains about the previous dismissals of lawsuits by judges of this Court, and he complains about Ameren UE shutting off his electricity. However, his complaint is devoid of any non-conclusory facts, which if proved, might show that he is entitled to relief under some federal statute or provision of the constitution. 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 Court finds the asserted claims in the complaint to be patently meritless, and therefore, the Court is without jurisdiction over the complaint. As a result, this action will be dismissed under Rule 12(h)(3). The Court notes that this is the third time plaintiff has brought this same case.1 If plaintiff wishes for this case to be reviewed, he should file an appeal rather than refiling the same case in this Court. 1 See Keys v. Missouri, 4:13CV304 NAB (E.D. Mo.); Keys v. Missouri -2- Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. An Order of Dismissal will be filed herewith. So Ordered this 5th day of March, 2013. E. RICHARD WEBBER SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-

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?