James v. Montgomery

Filing 15

ORDER by District Judge James H. Payne: granting 9 Defendant Thomas Montgomery's Motion to Dismiss (cjt, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JESSIE EARL JAMES,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS MONTGOMERY
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-CV-102-JHP

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [Doc. No. 9]. Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, filed his Complaint
on March 15, 2013, which alleges that Plaintiff was “assaulted” and “put on bad pills.” [Doc.
No. 1]. On March 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a supplement to his Complaint, in which Plaintiff
complains of the medical care he is receiving and re-alleges the “assault” allegations contained in
his Complaint. [Doc. No. 3]. On March 26, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. [Doc. No. 4]. On April 15, 2013, Defendant filed the
Motion to Dismiss now before the Court. [Doc. No. 9]. On April 30, 2013, the Court directed
Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss by May 14, 2013. [Doc. No. 13].
Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by lawyers
and must construe them liberally. Id. at 520. Nevertheless, the Court should not assume the role
of advocate, and should dismiss claims which are supported only by vague and conclusory
allegations. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Moreover, even pro se

plaintiffs are required to comply with the “fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.” Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir.1994).
“[F]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and the party invoking federal
jurisdiction bears the burden of proof.” Penteco Corp. Ltd. Partnership—1985A v. Union Gas
Sys., Inc., 929 F.2d 1519, 1521 (10th Cir. 1991). Federal courts “possess only that power
authorized by [the] Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511
U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Among the powers that Congress has bestowed upon the courts is the
power to hear controversies arising under federal law-federal question jurisdiction-and
controversies arising between citizens of different states-diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§
1331 and 1332.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish federal jurisdiction in this matter.
Even taking all of the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint as true, Plaintiff has arguably alleged
nothing more than assault and negligence claims arising under Oklahoma law. As such, the
Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) is granted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15 day of May, 2013.

2