Renwick v. Dill et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE - This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis #2 is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Patrick R Wyrick on 1/7/2025. (ekw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
)
)
CHERYL RENWICK,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
Case No. CIV-24-1177-PRW
)
v.
)
)
JACQUELINE C. DILL, et al.,
)
)
Defendant.
ORDER
On November 19, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff, appearing pro se, to show cause
as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on or
before December 4, 2024 (Dkt. 5). Plaintiff has filed no response.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they must have a statutory basis
for their jurisdiction.” 1 Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires
that “the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant,” 2
and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 3 Federal question jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires that the claim “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties
of the United States.” To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s complaint “must

Morris v. City of Hobart, 39 F.3d 1105, 1111 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Castaneda v. INS,
23 F.3d 1576, 1580 (10th Cir. 1994)).

1

2

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).

3

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
1

identify the statutory or constitutional provision under which the claim arises, and allege
sufficient facts to show that the case is one arising under federal law.” 4
Because Plaintiff is pro se, her pleadings are “to be construed liberally and held to
a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” 5 However, this liberal
construction does not relieve Plaintiff of her burden of alleging facts sufficient to establish
federal jurisdiction. 6
Plaintiff’s Complaint purports to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction on the basis of
diversity of citizenship (Dkt. 1). However, Plaintiff asserts that both she and Defendant
Jacqueline C. Dill are citizens of Oklahoma. Further, while Plaintiff did not allege the
citizenship of the remaining three Defendants, she listed Oklahoma addresses for each of
them, as well. Thus, there is no diversity of citizenship.
Plaintiff also checked the box for federal question jurisdiction on the Civil Cover
Sheet attached to her Complaint (Dkt. 1-1). But there is likewise no basis for invoking
federal question jurisdiction apparent from Plaintiff’s Complaint, as it appears that Plaintiff
is alleging only state law claims.
Liberally construing Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff has not met her burden of
alleging facts sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, this action is

Martinez v. U.S. Olympic Comm., 802 F.2d 1275, 1280 (10th Cir. 1986) (citations
omitted).

4

5

Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).

6

See id.
2

DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s Motion
for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 2) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of January 2025.

3