Afiz v. Buckner

Filing 9

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 5/9/2024. (JEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ABDUL AL-HAKEEM AFIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHELE BUCKNER,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:24-CV-00163-NCC

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on self-represented Petitioner Abdul Al-Hakeem Afiz’s
“Motion for Habeas Corpus.” (ECF No. 1). Petitioner seeks habeas relief under Rule 91.01 of the
Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss this
action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s power to decide a certain class of cases.
LeMay v. U.S. Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir. 2006). “Federal courts are not courts of
general jurisdiction; they have only the power that is authorized by Article III of the Constitution
and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto.” Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist.,
475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986); see also Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (“Federal courts are
courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.”).
The presence of subject-matter jurisdiction is a threshold requirement that must be assured in every
federal case. Kronholm v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 915 F.2d 1171, 1174 (8th Cir. 1990); see also
Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987) (“The threshold requirement in every
federal case is jurisdiction and we have admonished the district court to be attentive to a
satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements in all cases.”). Thus, the issue of subject-matter

jurisdiction may be raised at any time, by any party or the Court. Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo.,
567 F.3d 976, 982 (8th Cir. 2009).
Federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over both federal-question cases and
diversity-of-citizenship cases. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tribal Ct. of Spirit Lake Indian Rsrv.,
495 F.3d 1017, 1020 (8th Cir. 2007) (finding subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking if neither
diversity of citizenship nor federal-question jurisdiction applies); McLaurin v. Prater, 30 F.3d 982,
984-85 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting Congress has instructed that district courts shall have jurisdiction
in both federal question and diversity cases).
Federal-question jurisdiction gives district courts “original jurisdiction over civil actions
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids &
Iowa City Ry. Co., 785 F.3d 1182, 1188 (8th Cir. 2015); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A petitioner
must establish “either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to
relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Williams v.
Ragnone, 147 F.3d 700, 702 (8th Cir. 1998).
“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), district courts have original diversity jurisdiction over civil
actions when the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, without considering interest and costs,
and when the citizenship of each plaintiff is different from the citizenship of each defendant.” Ryan
ex rel. Ryan v. Schneider Nat. Carriers, Inc., 263 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2001). A complaint
making a good faith allegation of the jurisdictional amount is sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Universal Crop Prot. All., LLC, 620 F.3d 926, 931 (8th Cir. 2010).
Here, Petitioner seeks relief exclusively under Rule 91.01 of the Missouri Rules of Civil
Procedure. Petitioner does not invoke the federal habeas statutes and there is no indication that

2

diversity jurisdiction exists in this matter. Thus, the Court will dismiss this matter for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 9thday of May, 2024.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3