Kucera v. Sandia Corporation
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Chief District Judge William P. Johnson. IT IS ORDERED that: (i) Plaintiffs Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 2, filed February 20, 2018, is DENIED as moot; (ii) this case is DISMISSED without prejudice; and (iii) the Clerk UNSEAL this case. (kg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
GREGORY EDWARD KUCERA,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 18cv166 WJ/LF
SANDIA CORPORATION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint for Violation of
Civil Rights, Doc. 1, filed February 20, 2018 (“Complaint”), and on his Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 2, filed February 20, 201 (“Application”),.
For the reasons stated below, the Court will DISMISS this case for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction and DENY Plaintiff’s Application as moot.
Plaintiff states the basis for jurisdiction for his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is
“classified,” the basis for his claims pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), is “speech/[illegible],” and his explanation of how
Defendant was acting under color of state or federal law is “manslaughter.” Complaint at 4. His
statement for relief reads “settle out of court.” Complaint at 5. There are no other factual
allegations in the Complaint.
As the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, Plaintiff bears the burden of
alleging facts that support jurisdiction. See Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 985 (10th Cir.
2013) (“Since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, we presume no jurisdiction exists
absent an adequate showing by the party invoking federal jurisdiction”). Plaintiff’s Complaint
does not contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” as
required by Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter. See Evitt v. Durland, 243 F.3d 388
*2 (10th Cir. 2000) (“even if the parties do not raise the question themselves, it is our duty to
address the apparent lack of jurisdiction sua sponte”) (quoting Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n,
859 F.2d 842, 843 (10th Cir.1988).
While Plaintiff wrote “classified,” “speech” and
“manslaughter” as the bases for jurisdiction, he has not alleged any plausible, non-conclusory
factual allegations from which this Court could determine that it has jurisdiction over this matter.
See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (“Dismissal for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of the federal claim is proper only when the
claim is so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise
completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy”).
The Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 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”); Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th
Cir.2006) (“[D]ismissals for lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice because the court,
having determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the action, is incapable of reaching a disposition
on the merits of the underlying claims.”). Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case and
is dismissing this case, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Application to proceed in forma pauperis as
moot.
Plaintiff requested that the Clerk “Please seal all documents under national securi[t]y
concerns. All information enclosed pertains and pertains only to issues of national security.
Please seal.” Application at 6. The Clerk sealed the case. Courts have discretion to allow the
2
sealing of documents if the public's right of access is outweighed by other interests. See JetAway
Aviation, LLC v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 754 F.3d 824, 826 (10th Cir.2014) (per curiam). “To
overcome [the] presumption against sealing, the party seeking to seal records must articulate a real
and substantial interest that justifies depriving the public of access to the records that inform our
decision-making process.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). While Plaintiff makes the
conclusory allegations that this case should be sealed due to national security concerns, he has not
set forth any factual allegations to support his contention that the case should be sealed.
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs,
Doc. 2, filed February 20, 2018, is DENIED as moot;
(ii) this case is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
(iii) the Clerk UNSEAL this case.
_________________________________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?