Lovelace v. Levy Oklahoma Inc

Filing 6

ORDER: Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 14 days of this Order to cure the deficiencies in his pleading. Otherwise, this action will be dismissed without prejudice to a future filing. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 8/2/17. (ml)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ERIC W. LOVELACE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LEVY RESTAURANTS/COMPASS GROUP, )
)
Defendant.
)

Case No. CIV-17-775-D

ORDER
Upon examination of the Complaint, the Court finds that it fails to state a basis of
federal subject matter jurisdiction and fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a). 1

Further, because Plaintiff is proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the

Complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint
within 14 days of this Order to cure the deficiencies in his pleading.

Otherwise, this

action will be dismissed without prejudice to a future filing.

1

Because federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, this Court has “‘an
independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence
of a challenge from any party,’” and may raise the issue at any time. 1mage Software, Inc. v.
Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 459 F.3d 1044, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,
546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)). Also, although Plaintiff is a pro se litigant whose pleadings are held
to a less stringent standard than ones drafted by lawyers, he must “‘follow the same rules of
procedure that govern other litigants.’” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836,
840 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994)).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 2017.