Sir Arthur Heim for Citizens Suit v. U.S. Attorney Generals Eric Holder et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Defendants Motions to Dismiss (filing nos. 23 and 35 ) are granted and Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. All other pending Motions and Objections are denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
SIR ARTHUR HEIM FOR
CITIZENS SUIT, and United States
of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC
HOLDER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:11CV376

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. (Filing Nos.
23 and 35.) As set forth below, the Motions are granted.
I.

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff filed this matter on October 26, 2011. (Filing No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges
claims against four separate federal, Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming officials and
includes the term “et al.” with each named Defendant.1 ( Id. at CM/ECF p. 1.)
Plaintiff’s Complaint is nonsensical, rambling, and extremely difficult to
decipher. As best as the court can tell, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for
“criminal subterfuge,” “treachery,” for “criminally defraud[ing] Plaintiff, and for
unspecified “corruption.” (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 1-4.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
have “[c]laimed they are gods, Banker gods, Wall Street gods,” and have “RUNG the
Bell To Quit,” “[j]ust as the Navy Seals in training.” (Id. at CM/ECF p. 4.) Plaintiff
requests that the court award him “$18 Septillion with 17.5% interest annually from

1

For purposes of this Memorandum and Order, the court need not distinguish
between the separate Defendants.

January 1, 1970 to date, with seven times that amount Proverbs 6:30-31.” (Id. at
CM/ECF p. 4.)
Defendants filed their Motions to Dismiss, arguing, among other things, that
dismissal is warranted because this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. (Filing
Nos. 24 and 36.) Plaintiff responded to the pending Motions to Dismiss, again with
nonsensical, incomprehensible filings.2 (Filing No. 33.) However, Plaintiff did not
respond to any of the substantive arguments raised by Defendants. In light of this, the
Motions to Dismiss are deemed fully submitted.
II.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Defendants argue that the claims against them should be dismissed because,
among other things, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. (Filing Nos. 24 and
36.) The court agrees.
A.

Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction

As set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the court determines
at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction on the

2

For example, Plaintiff states that “[b]ecause of Defendants Evil Coercion with
government Constitutional Officers Those Bank Frauds led to the CRIMINAL BANK
BAILOUTS. The Banks already had the Federal Reserve giving them $20.00 for
every $1.00 they had. They stil1 use Pyramid Schemes and their greed to defraud the
USA Treasury in ONE World ORDER. Then George W. Bush president et al.,
COVERING UP BANK FRAUDS; REMEMBER SILVERADO and THE
SWEETHEART DEALS by George H. W. Bush President et a1., The Republican
party et al. The Changing Names of their Banks are Keeping the Frauds and
Corruptions Going. The Defendants SAID NOTHING!” (Filing No. 33 at CM/ECF
pp. 1-2.) Plaintiff’s entire Response consists of this sort of rambling.
2

federal courts “are strictly construed.” Hedberg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
350 F.2d 924, 928 (8th Cir. 1965). Subject matter jurisdiction is proper pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332, commonly referred to as “diversity of citizenship” jurisdiction. For
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, “diversity of citizenship” means that “the citizenship
of each plaintiff is different from the citizenship of each defendant.”

Ryan v.

Schneider Natl. Carriers, Inc., 263 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2001). In addition, the
amount in controversy must be greater than $75,000.00 for diversity of citizenship
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Where “a plaintiff's allegations of jurisdictional
facts are challenged by the defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden of supporting the
allegations by competent proof.” Janzen v. Goos, 302 F.2d 421, 424 (8th Cir. 1962)
(internal quotation omitted); see also Trimble v. Asarco, Inc., 232 F.3d 946, 959-60
(8th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted) (abrogated on other grounds by Exxon Mobil
Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005)) (holding that where an
“opposing party or the court questions whether the amount alleged is legitimate, the
party invoking federal jurisdiction must prove the requisite amount by a
preponderance of the evidence”).
Here, Plaintiff alleges a sufficient amount in controversy, albeit a ridiculous
one. (Filing No. 1.) However, Plaintiff does not set forth any specific allegations
relating to his citizenship or the citizenship of any Defendant. (Id.) The only
information contained in the Complaint relating to citizenship is Plaintiff’s address of
“Bushnell, Nebraska” and the fact that he has sued, among other people, the Attorney
General of the State of Nebraska, who resides in Nebraska. (Id.) Defendants have
clearly challenged both aspects of the “jurisdictional facts” underlying Plaintiff’s
allegations. Plaintiff failed to respond in any way to that challenge and has therefore
failed to carry his burden to establish diversity of citizenship jurisdiction with
“competent proof.” Thus, this court has absolutely no basis upon which to assert
diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims and finds that diversity of
citizenship jurisdiction does not apply.

3

B.

Federal Question Jurisdiction

In addition to diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction is
also proper where a plaintiff asserts a “non-frivolous claim of a right or remedy under
a federal statute,” commonly referred to as “federal question” jurisdiction. Northwest
South Dakota Prod. Credit Ass’n v. Smith, 784 F.2d 323, 325 (8th Cir. 1986). As set
forth above, Plaintiff fails to assert any cause of action, and certainly does not
adequately allege a cause of action under any federal statute or constitutional
provision. Indeed, most of Plaintiff’s Complaint is nonsense, and the bulk of the
allegations are devoted to complaining of unspecified criminal conduct and allegations
that Defendants are “corrupt” and have “[e]mbraced the devil” through a “bailout.”
(Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp. 1-4.) 3 Even with the most liberal construction, Plaintiff
has failed to establish that federal question jurisdiction applies here. In light of
Plaintiff’s failure to submit competent proof, the court finds that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction.4 Further, because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and although some
Defendants have not yet been served and others have not yet answered, the court will

3

At best, Plaintiff seeks criminal prosecution of Defendants. Such relief is not
available because the “authority to initiate a criminal complaint rests exclusively with
state and federal prosecutors.” See Mercer v. Lexington Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov’t.,
No. 94-6645, 1995 WL 222178, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 13, 1995) (unpublished order);
see also Parkhurst v. Tabor, 569 F.3d 861, 867 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States
v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979) (“Whether to prosecute and what charge to
file or bring before a grand jury are decisions that generally rest in the prosecutor’s
discretion.”)).
4

Plaintiff references “foreclosure” in his Complaint. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF
p. 1.) To the extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge the foreclosure of his land, the court
notes that challenges to state foreclosure and eviction proceedings are barred under
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Vuaai El v. Mortgage Elec. Registry Sys., No.
08-14190, 2009 WL 2705819, at *9 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2009) (concluding the court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s challenge to state foreclosure and
eviction proceedings where plaintiff alleged possession of a U.C.C. financing
statement, possessory lien, land patent and homestead levy exemption).
4

dismiss this matter as to all claims and Defendants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (filing nos. 23 and 35) are granted and

Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
2.

A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this

Memorandum and Order.
3.

All other pending Motions and Objections are denied.

DATED this 30 th day of April, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
5