Hake et al v. Simpson et al

Filing 6

SHOW CAUSE ORDER -Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by December 29, 2017 why the case should not be dismissed. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 12-20-2017. (de)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

Nathaniel William Hake, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-420
Judge Thomas M. Rose

Sheriff Michael Simpson, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
SHOW CAUSE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and there is a presumption that a federal
court lacks jurisdiction until it has been demonstrated. Turner v. President, Directors and Co. of
the Bank of North America, 4 U.S. 8, 10 (1799). Facts supporting subject matter jurisdiction must
be affirmatively pleaded by the person seeking to show it. Bingham v. Cabot, 3 U.S. 382 (1798).
Moreover, federal courts Ahave an independent duty >to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises
as to the existence of federal jurisdiction.=@ Kentucky Press Ass'n, Inc. v. Kentucky, 454 F.3d 505,
508 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278
(1977)).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides in pertinent part, “a pleading which sets forth
a claim for relief ... shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the
court's jurisdiction depends….” Plaintiffs have pleaded:
This action is brought pursuant to 42 U. S. C. §§1983, 1985
and 1988 and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution, 11 U.S.C. §§ 362 and 1201 and, 15 U.S.C.
§1692. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U. S. C. §§1331 and 1341(3)

and (4) and 1343 and the aforementioned constitutional and
statutory provisions. The declaratory and injunctive relief sought is
authorized by 28 U. S. C. §§ 2201 and 2202, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and
Rule 57 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the
Plaintiffs invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to
28 U. S. C.§1367(a), of state causes of action included herein since
they are involved in the facts, law and issues of this matter.
ECF 1, PageID 3 ¶ 1.
The Court notes initially, that 28 U.S. C. § 1341 dictates what “district courts shall not” do.
It is difficult to construe this as a basis of jurisdiction. The cited bankruptcy provisions create
stays on proceedings during the pendency of a bankruptcy action. The Court notes that in the
bankruptcy action, in re Nathan Hake Farms, LLC, 3:17-bk-33681 (S.D. Ohio), a hearing is set for
today, December 20, 2017, to determine the existence of a stay. ECF 37. While Plaintiffs’
citations to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 are interesting, the Court sees nothing in the complaint that would
allow one to conclude that civil rights were at issue, much less an argument for why they should
overcome the automatic stay.
The Court being obliged to assure itself that it has a basis for jurisdiction and perceiving
none, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause by December 29, 2017 why the case should not be
dismissed.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Wednesday, December 20, 2017.

s/Thomas M. Rose
_____________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

-3-