Adams v. Turner

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 1/8/16. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LILO D. ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES L. TURNER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15CV1709 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on its own motion. The Court previously reviewed
the complaint and found that jurisdiction is lacking. So, the Court ordered plaintiff to
show cause why it should not be summarily dismissed under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner has not responded. As a result, this action is
dismissed.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant James Turner murdered her son, Conrad Adams,
during a robbery. Missouri court records show that Turner pled guilty to the crime on
February 10, 2014. Missouri v. Turner, No. 1222-CR03842-01 (St. Louis City). On
February 11, 2014, the court sentenced Turner to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Id.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The requirement that jurisdiction
be established as a threshold matter springs from the nature and limits of the judicial
power of the United States and is inflexible and without exception.” Kessler v. Nat’l
Enterprises, Inc., 347 F.3d 1076, 1081 (8th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted); see

Kuhl v. Hampton, 451 F.2d 340, 342 (8th Cir. 1971) (federal courts “were not established
to mediate any and all types of complaints and alleged wrongs.”).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court has jurisdiction to hear cases “arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” For this action to arise under the
Constitution or laws of the United States, the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be
met. To state a claim under § 1983, the defendant must be a “state actor,” such as a
police officer or other government official. In this case, there is no indication that
defendant was a government official performing an official duty at the time of the
murder. Therefore, the complaint does not state a claim under § 1983, and the Court does
not have jurisdiction under § 1331. See Biscanin v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. 407 F.3d
905, 907 (8th Cir. 2005).
Wrongful death is an action properly brought in state court. See Sullivan v.
Carlisle, 851 S.W.2d 510, 512 (Mo. banc 1993); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.080 (“Action for
wrongful death”). To bring a state law case in federal court, diversity jurisdiction must
exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For diversity jurisdiction to exist, a plaintiff and the
defendants must be “citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “It is, to say
the least, well settled that federal diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity, so that
no defendant is a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff.” Walker v. Norwest Corp.,
108 F.3d 158, 162 (8th Cir.1997). Moreover, the amount in controversy must exceed
$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction does not exist in this case, however,
because plaintiff and defendant both reside in Missouri. As a result, the Court lacks
jurisdiction to hear this matter.
2

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 8th day of January, 2016.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3