Gladish v. Rodriguez
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Robert C. Brack DISMISSING 1 Complaint, AND DENYING AS MOOT 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (yc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DEBORAH GLADISH,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 18cv366 RB/SMV
RODRIGO RODRIGUEZ and
CARLOS RODRIGUEZ,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Complaint
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1 (“Compl.”)), filed April 19, 2018, and on her Application
to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2 (“Appl.”)), filed April 19,
2018. For the reasons stated below, the Court will DISMISS this case without prejudice and
DENY Plaintiff’s Application as moot.
Plaintiff filed her Complaint using the form “Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (See Compl.) Plaintiff indicates that Defendant Rodrigo Rodriguez is her
landlord, Defendant Carlos Rodriguez is a plumber, and that one of them “installed an unvented
heater in Nov. 2017, no primary heating source.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff asserts a cause of action for
“emotional & verbal & physical abuse on an elderly, disabled person” and states that Defendant
Rodrigo Rodriguez “laughed at me because of my physical condition [and] denied equal access
to the properties in which I rent from him.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff also asserts a cause of action for
“Improper heating and cooling since Dec 31, 2016 – present” and states “electrical problems are
likely to arise, wanted me to take care of debris left outside my residence, glass, weeds [and]
[w]hile living at the residence Mr. Rodriguez remodeled part of my residence demanding that he
will be raising the rent due to the remodel.” (Id.)
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”). While the form
Complaint states “Jurisdiction in invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343[a](3), 42 U.S.C. § 1983,”
there are no allegations that Defendants deprived Plaintiff of any right, privilege or immunity
secured by the Constitution or any federal law. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not otherwise 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,
at *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)). Plaintiff is a citizen of New Mexico and alleges that
Defendant Rodrigo Rodriguez is also a citizen of New Mexico. (See Compl. at 1.) Consequently,
there is no properly alleged diversity jurisdiction. Nor is there any properly alleged federal
question jurisdiction because there are no allegations that this action arises under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
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 it is dismissing this case, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Application to proceed
in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) as moot.
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i)
this case is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
(ii)
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs (Doc. 2), filed April 19, 2018, is DENIED as moot.
__________________________________
ROBERT C. BRACK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?