Fraction v. James et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 13 Motion to Reopen Case. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BERNARD FRACTION,
Plaintiff,
v.
RANDY JAMES, and VANDELAY
INVESTMENTS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:14CV348

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Bernard Fraction’s one-paragraph
“Motion to Re-Open” his case (Filing No. 13) dated April 21, 2015. Fraction asks the
court to reopen this case because “[his] life depends on it” and he “need[s] [his] day
in court.” (Id.)
This court cannot hear a case if it lacks the jurisdiction to do so. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). The court dismissed this case on
April 17, 2015, because Fraction failed to set forth a basis for this court’s jurisdiction
in his pleadings, and the basis for this court’s jurisdiction was not apparent from the
face of any of the pleadings or documents filed. Nothing in Fraction’s motion to
reopen his case resolves the question of why subject-matter jurisdiction is appropriate
in this court. Thus, for the reasons set forth in the court’s order dated April 17, 2015,
this case was properly dismissed and the court declines to reopen it.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Fraction’s “Motion to Re-Open” his case
(Filing No. 13) is denied.

DATED this 24th day of June, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
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.

2