Koch v. Williams et al

Filing 5

ORDER - The plaintiff shall have to on or before February 19, 2016, to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (Copy e-mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

MARK ALLEN KOCH,
Plaintiff,

8:16CV10

vs.
ORDER
JEANNETTE WILLIAMS and
CARL CLARK,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court after review of the plaintiff’s complaint (Filing No.
1). Additionally, the court has reviewed the plaintiff’s January 21, 2016, filing with its
attachments.
The plaintiff filed this action on January 12, 2016, in the United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska. See Filing No. 1. The plaintiff filed a document titled,
“Appeal of Ruling in Case ID# A-15-537 from Nebraska Supreme Court, Lincoln,
Nebraska from 14-17 District Court of Valley County, Nebraska.”

Id.

Under the

heading, “Jurisdiction,” the plaintiff states the matter is an appeal of a civil procedure
supported by case law. Id. at 1. The plaintiff suggests this court has jurisdiction as a
court of justice. Id. Additionally, the plaintiff states,
The injustice of procedure called into question for the United
States District Court of Nebraska is a violation of substantial
right that would adversely effect the outcome from the
balance of the law and proper due process afforded to the
plaintiff/appellant according to the United States Constitution
and other federal laws.
Id. at 2.
The plaintiff’s complaint states it is an appeal from a December 7, 2015,
Supreme Court of Nebraska ruling remanding a case to the District Court of Valley
County, Nebraska. Id. at 2. The plaintiff did not attach an order or ruling to his filing.
The plaintiff’s complaint references a state court proceeding where he feels an opposing
party had access to information or discovery for which he did not have similar access.
Id. at 3. Additionally, the plaintiff cites to federal and state perjury laws. Id. at 3-4. The
plaintiff suggests his state court proceeding lacks due process and a fair and just trial is

impossible. Id. at 4. The plaintiff states he has made a written request for information
under the Freedom of Information Act based on denial of his access to police reports.
Id. at 5. The plaintiff alleges he seeks to have this court hear the case due to the state
court’s arbitrary decisions and serious error denying substantial rights to the plaintiff. Id.
Ultimately, the plaintiff requests this court “Mandate the reverseal [sic] of the order of
the District Court of Valley County, Nebraska requiring proceeding to trial without
allowing proper access to information and discovery processes.” Id. The plaintiff also
requests this court “deal adequately with the perjuries and false statements affirmations
of the defense.

Finally, the plaintiff/appellant requests the court to require both

defendants to answer to and be ordered to come to trial for just due process of law due
to the amended answer showing both were party to the incident.” Id. at 6.
“A federal court not only has the power but also the obligation at any time to
inquire into jurisdiction whenever the possibility that jurisdiction does not exist arises.”
Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing
Philbrook v. Glodgett, 421 U.S. 707 (1975)); see Amnesty Int’l, USA v. Battle, 559
F.3d 1170, 1176-77 (11th Cir. 2009). “If 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).
“A party invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden of establishing that he has the right
to assert his claim in federal court.” 281 Care Comm. v. Arneson, 638 F.3d 621, 627
(8th Cir. 2011).
“It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
The limits upon federal jurisdiction, whether imposed by the Constitution or by
Congress, must be neither disregarded nor evaded.” Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v.
Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978).

“[C]onclusory allegations do not provide an

adequate basis for determining this court’s jurisdiction.”

Jil McCorkindale v. Am.

Home Assurance Co./A.I.C., 909 F. Supp. 646, 656 (N.D. Iowa 1995). The plaintiff
fails to show any manner in which the court could find a basis for jurisdiction based on
either diversity of citizenship or a federal question arising under the Constitution, law, or
treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1331, 1332. This court does not act as
an appellate court for state proceedings absent specific statutory authority to the
contrary and may not interfere with pending state cases. See Younger v. Harris, 401
2

U.S. 37 (1971) (holding federal courts may not enjoin pending state court criminal
proceedings even with an allegation of a constitutional violation).

Accordingly, the

plaintiff shall have an opportunity to show cause why this matter should not be
summarily dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED:
The plaintiff shall have to on or before February 19, 2016, to show cause why
this matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Dated this 22nd day of January, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge

3